At the dinner table, I told my wife that my subscriber count doubled in just a couple of weeks, thanks to a viral note.

“Imagine giving a lecture in a room and halfway through, people started pouring in and the audience has now doubled. What should I say to them?” I asked my wife.

“Tell them to sit down. They should’ve come earlier!” she replied.

Okay, will do that.

In all seriousness, I sincerely thank you and I really appreciate each and every one of you for your interest in learning about:

Why biological evolution doesn’t contradict the Christian faith.

As you can imagine, I also received a lot of criticism and hate (from Christians) for saying this, and you probably have a lot of questions for me as well. If you are new here, welcome! If you’ve been here for a while, thanks for staying.

So here are some of the Frequently Asked Questions (last updated on 8/12/2026)

1. Who are you? Why should I trust you?
   My name is Chi-Jing Leow. I am currently a Ph.D. student in biology and I hold a B.A. and M.S. in biology as well. My research focus is evolutionary genetics using fish as models. I am a published scientist. My goal is to become a professor, Lord willing.
   Someone told me: “Your credentials only mean where you went to school!” True, therefore you should always fact-check me and call me out when I am wrong. But you need to have good arguments and credible sources to back up your claims. I am not a theologian by training, so I only make claims about hermeneutics or biblical interpretation from credible Bible scholars.

2. Are you a Christian?
   Merely claiming to be a Christian doesn’t mean much these days. And you can’t say I am one just based on the beliefs I hold, because being a Christian isn’t just intellectual agreement, it’s a life lived out as a Jesus follower. But since most of you don’t know me personally, I will tell you that I grew up in a Reformed Presbyterian church, went to a well-known Christian liberal arts college, and now attend a church under the Evangelical Free Church of America. Note: my views and theological standpoints are mine, not tied to these churches or denominations. I confess the Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds.

3. Why are you doing this?

   One of the biggest lies that many Christians believe is that you need to choose between science and faith, especially when it comes to evolution. Not only is this driving many non-believers away from Jesus. It’s also causing many young Christians to lose their childhood faith. It’s so sad. But it doesn’t have to be like this and I am here to show why.

4. Do you believe the Bible is inerrant?
   I get asked this question very often. It’s almost the litmus test they use to see if I am a true Christian or not, before even asking who I thought Jesus was. How strange. I don’t like this question because there are various forms and definitions of inerrancy. I believe Scripture is truthful in what it affirms (salvation through Jesus), not what it references (ancient science like flat earth or solid sky dome)1. I do believe the Bible is inspired by God and written through human authors.

5. How can you believe in God and evolution?
   I believe in Jesus as my Lord and Savior. I accept biological evolution as the best scientific theory to explain the diversity of life. Believe vs. accept. They are not the same. Accepting evolution is like accepting atomic theory or the theory of relativity. These theories describe what happens in the natural world. Biological evolution is not a belief system, though many Christians conflate it with a godless worldview and many atheists abuse it as well. Believing in Jesus is putting your trust in Him. He is a Person, not a scientific theory.

6. Why shouldn’t I literally interpret Genesis?

   My answer to you is first to ask: “Why should you? Is this how people in the Ancient Near Eastern (ANE) culture would’ve understood the creation account? Literally?” Most people don’t know how to answer this. Some don’t even care about the authors’ intentions or the original audience’s understanding.

   Because literal interpretation is the most natural reading of Genesis? Sure, it might be the easiest way for a 21st-century reader, but that doesn’t mean it’s the most faithful way to understand it.

   Because literal interpretation is the most traditional and biblical view? No, that is not true. Early theologians had different views on this. You can read about it here and here. We need to know that:

   The Bible is written for us, but not to us.2

   John Walton argues that ancient Near Eastern readers would’ve understood the creation account primarily in terms of functional origins rather than material origins. And that the seven-day creation framework reflects a temple-building narrative that any ANE audience would’ve recognized. I recommend John Walton’s work on this (see FAQ 15).

7. If I can’t trust the first eleven chapters of Genesis as history, how can I trust the rest of the Bible?

   This is probably one of the most harmful teachings I’ve heard and learned in the evangelical world. This idea that “everything must be literal or nothing is true” is like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Now, I am not saying we should allegorize everything in Genesis 1–11, but I believe this is where we need to do more careful examination using good hermeneutics.

   Whether God created everything in six literal 24-hour days is a different question from whether Adam and Eve were historical, and that is a different question again from how we should understand Noah’s flood. Lumping everything into one binary category is not a good idea.

8. Sure, you can accept biological evolution and still be a Christian. But that doesn’t mean evolution is real either.
   You’re right that you can believe in many things that are untrue like conspiracy theories and still be a Christian. But most Christians reject evolution for theological and hermeneutical reasons. I’ve learned that no amount of physical evidence will convince a Christian that biological evolution is real if they believe it contradicts Christianity. Because to them, if evolution turned out to be real, their faith would be in trouble. So, in order to evaluate biological evolution as a scientific theory objectively, I have to first show them why it doesn’t necessarily contradict the core of Christianity, but mainly just certain interpretations of Genesis.

9. You’re the first Christian I know who accepts evolution, are there more like you?
   Yes. We are also known as Evolutionary Creationists (EC) because we believe God created using biological evolution. I don’t like the term Theistic Evolution because historically it’s often confused with deism. Evolutionary Creationism is NOT deism. I personally prefer to identify myself as a Christian who accepts biological evolution rather than as EC or TE, because there are various positions and viewpoints within this camp as well. There are many famous theologians who believe evolution is compatible with Christianity such as C.S. Lewis, Billy Graham, Tim Keller, N.T. Wright, Karl Barth, J.I. Packer, John Walton, Alister McGrath. The list goes on. Now that doesn’t mean those people are right either, but at least that should give haters pause when they try to cast stones at me.

10. I am not a Young Earth Creationist anymore, but I still have trouble accepting evolution.
    I was a YEC most of my life, and was deeply ingrained in its theology and apologetic views promoted by Answers in Genesis. So I fully understand the difficulty and sentiment. There are many Christians who are Old Earth Creationists (OECs) who accept the age of the Earth but not biological evolution. I personally think that is a much better position to hold than Young Earth Creationism. This also goes to my point about why I don’t really care whether you accept evolution or not. It’s not a salvation issue. We don’t need to have all the answers to acknowledge that God is the Creator and Sustainer of all things.

11. Are you just trying to make me accept evolution?
    By no means. I don’t really care what you believe about how God created.

Here is my mission statement on the Substackerverse and beyond:
To show Christians why biological evolution doesn’t contradict the Christian faith, so that when they encounter the evidence for the age of the Earth and evolution, their faith won’t collapse. To show atheists that you can be an intellectually honest person, even a scientist, and believe in God. You don’t need to abandon your intellect to become a follower of Jesus.

12. I want to start a fight with you
    Please take a minute to review the community policy. I am not here to argue. I have much better things to do, like my doctoral dissertation research or gardening (I have a lot of luffa plants). I am not here to win an argument. I am just here to share my thoughts, and encourage those who wrestle with similar questions. If you just want to hang around and listen, this place is for you.

13. Why didn’t you reply to my message or comment?
    I don’t have the capacity or time to respond to all the messages and comments. I try my best. I didn’t come to Substack to gain an audience but to share my thoughts and bring awareness to this topic.

14. What should I expect from your newsletters?
    Anything and nothing. Since I make it clear that I mainly write for myself, not to gain an audience, I write according to my timeline and wishes. Everything is free and nothing is behind a paywall, so don’t expect too much from me. That said, I still plan to send out an article once a month at least.

15. Where can I find more resources on this?
    The good news is, I am not the first person who’s wrestled with these questions. I recommend BioLogos.org for many of these evolution and Christianity questions. They have a discussion forum, too. If you are new to the science and faith topic, here are some books I recommend:

    • The Language of God by Dr. Francis Collins, a world-renowned geneticist and Christian.

    • Finding Darwin’s God by Dr. Kenneth Miller, also a brilliant scientist and Christian. This is a dense read but good.

    • The Lost World of Genesis One by Dr. John Walton (professor at Wheaton College). It’s an easy read to understand how the ancient Israelites would have understood the creation story. Highly recommend. There are also The Lost World of Adam and Eve and The Lost World of The Flood.

    • There are many other books on the science and faith subject, if you have specific questions in mind, I might know some resources for you.

16. How can I support you?
    Thanks for asking! The best way you can support me is the usual “Smash the like and subscribe buttons!” If you find my writing helpful, please share it with others, it does help. If you want to buy me coffee or fuel my Panda Express addiction, consider becoming a paid subscriber. But don’t worry, nothing will be behind the paywall.

My invitation for you

The topics of science and faith are inherently complex. American journalist H. L. Mencken put it well:

“For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.”

I am not here to give you simple and straightforward answers. I am not here to tell you what to believe either. I don’t claim to have all the answers, nobody does except God. I continue to find these questions hard and challenging, like the historical Adam and Eve, animal suffering and theodicy. I continue to wrestle with them.

I also want to break down the barriers for atheists to consider Christianity. Christianity is not and should not be anti-intellectual or anti-science. I want seekers to know that.

Whether you’re a brand-new or well-journeyed follower of Jesus, a deconstructed Christian, a curious atheist, or someone who doesn’t even remember how you got here. You are welcome.

I invite you to come wrestle with these questions with an open mind and humility.

Stay fishy.

Here are some articles I wrote that might answer your questions.

Did Animals Die Before the Fall?

Old Earth or Young Earth? What the Bible Actually Says

Is Darwinism a Religion? Thoughts from C.S. Lewis

From Young Earth Creationist to Evolutionary Biologist: My Personal Story

How I Changed My Mind on Evolution

Ken Ham Is Willing to Divide the Church over Young Earth Creationism

Plagiarized Errors: Why Genetics Rules Out Common-Designer Argument

Imago Dei: Can’t Define a Mystery?

You can find more on my home page.

References:

If you were an engineer, and the goal was to make a fighter jet, would it be easier to A) turn a pre-existing car into a fighter jet or B) just build a fighter jet from scratch?

Most engineers would go with B.

Real world example: Saab, often known for making cars, also made the Saab 37 Viggen jet fighter. They did not build that aircraft by starting with a car and adding and removing pieces to make it a jet. Much easier to just make a jet from scratch.

In other words, if you were God, would it be easier to reuse the blueprints or redesign everything from scratch when creating something?

This is a common philosophical/theological argument against God using evolution to create. Taking this claim at face value, it seems to make sense. If God is an all powerful engineer, why would he use evolution - a process that seems random (actually it’s not) and takes incredibly long to unfold? It seems inefficient, wasteful, and counterproductive.

However, this argument is not merely based on evidence. It’s more a question about how God would do things. The way that makes sense to our human minds.

Because of how this question is always framed, many Christians dismiss evolution just because it doesn’t seem like how an omnipotent God would do. But this does not do the evidence justice, because we do not accept evolution based on our preferences, but because of the evidence. Dismissing an idea with mounting evidence just because you do not think God would act a certain way can be seen as bias.

I think the person who asked the question above was thinking about the similarities we observed in the biological systems, such as body plans and DNA, and concluding that God was reusing the design and blueprints for different organisms.

But if you understand biology and evolution, the evidence actually strongly supports a tinkering process - turning a pre-existing car into a fighter jet. There are many Christians who accept biological evolution because it is the inference to the best explanation based on the evidence, not our preferences. I plan to get to the Common Design versus common descent question in upcoming posts.

But I think something is always missing in this kind of discussion. One question that never gets touched on is who God is as a Creator.

Is God just an engineer in the creation process? Think about it.

Is creation just an engineering project?

I think viewing God as an engineer gives us a small and incomplete view of Him. If creation is all about the end product, why not just snap His fingers and make it happen already? Why take billions of years just for the stars and galaxies to form? If we squeeze the whole creation process, 13.8 billion years, into a 24-hour clock, humans would not appear until the last two seconds. Compared with the size of the universe, we are as small as a speck of dust. Why create such a vast universe when we don’t even get to see most of it?

Engineering is all about efficiency, finding the most efficient way to accomplish the task with the least amount of cost. If creation is only about us and efficiency, that seems like a wasteful and unnecessary way to do it. Therefore, an Almighty Engineer would not use evolution and take this long to create. This is exactly how some Christians reject deep time and biological evolution. Because it doesn’t seem like what God would do.

But who are we to tell God how to create?

Think about this. Some of the riches men and women are the slowest and least efficient people. Why? Because they have all the resources and time. They are never in a hurry or in need. Now how about a God who is outside of time?

Creation is an expression of love and abundance

The creation account in Genesis 1 is a highly structured, stylized, and layered poetic narrative. It’s not God executing an engineering plan. Viewing it that way imposes our 21st-century modern scientific mindset on an ancient text written for an ancient audience.

God also didn’t have to create anything. He was self-sufficient and did not need anything from us. God created us out of His abundance and as an expression of love. God wanted a relationship with mankind.

I think we need to stop viewing God as just an engineer. If you have any artist friends, you know how offensive it can be to dismiss their creativity.

Lord Business vs. Master Builders

Viewing God as an engineer reminds me of the character President Business from The LEGO Movie.

President Business is the guy who wants to control everything: no crossing between worlds, no creative building, and everybody has to follow the instructions. He sends out his micromanagers to keep everyone in place by using the Kragel.

“Just build something!”

The Master Builders are the rebels that fight against President Business. They are the creative ones. They follow no blueprints, no guidelines, just improvision and imagination. They can create almost anything from what is around, like this sick mobile below.

God the Artist

In the creation process, God is not just an Engineer, strictly following the blueprints and executing the plan. He is also an Artist, delighting in the creative process and having fun like Finn - the little boy in the movie. Finn is a Master Builder. Creation is not only an engineering project, but also a work of art.

The Master Builders work just like evolution. They take whatever is around and transform them. It’s creative and unpredictable at times, but nonetheless beautiful.

Now, is biological evolution a sloppy way to create? If you see God as merely an engineer, sure. But I reckon not. Just look around you. Life is so complex, diverse, and beautiful. It shows that God is not only an engineer, but an skillful artist. And biological evolution is how God chooses to create, even until today.

Going back to the original question:

If you were an engineer, would you A) turn a pre-existing car into a fighter jet or B) make it from scratch?

Lord Business would choose option B.

A Master Builder would choose option A.

About the author:

Hi! I am Chi-Jing Leow, a Christian biologist. I am also a follower of Jesus, and I care deeply about exploring the topics at the intersection of science and faith.

Share

Leave a comment

Many of us began our science journey because we loved the subject and the concepts felt easy to grasp. But the more you learn about nature at a deeper level, it can seem very counterintuitive and paradoxical.

Here are some examples that always blow my mind when I stop and think about them.

Time and space are flexible like Play-Doh

According to Einstein’s General Relativity, space and time are woven together into a single, flexible fabric called spacetime. It can be stretched, compressed, and bent like Play-Doh (I’m exaggerating a little). The speed of light is universally constant, but time is not. You could technically ‘time travel’ into the future if you travel close to the speed of light (~300,000 km/s), because time would slow down on your end compared to those on Earth. I once told my physics professor that I was late because I ran so fast and time was dilated. That didn’t work. I still got marked absent from class. Gravity is more accurately described as the curvature of spacetime rather than a force. During a total solar eclipse, when the Moon blocks the Sun’s glare, you can see the background stars. The Sun’s massive gravitational field curves spacetime around it, causing the light from the background stars to bend slightly as it passes, like a curved baseball.

“Everything we call real is made of things that cannot be regarded as real.”^[1]

Matter is composed of atoms, which are mostly empty space with electrons around the nucleus. So every material thing, including the human body, is mostly empty space. The reason why we cannot walk through walls is that the negatively charged electrons repel each other. Both matter and light exhibit both wave-like and particle-like behavior^[2]. So I guess we also behave like both?

Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle

At the level of classical Newtonian physics, everything seems to be deterministic. The apple hit Isaac’s head while he was slacking under the tree just as it should. Get your F=ma calculation right and Messi scores the 8th goal in this FIFA World Cup.

But when you get to the quantum physics level, nothing makes sense anymore, and your mind starts to melt. You cannot know the exact position and the exact momentum of a particle. It’s like that friend of yours who is always MIA (missing in action). You can know exactly where he is, but you don’t know where he is going. Or he would tell you where he is going, but you have no clue where he is. Pretty frustrating at times for the physicists, but this is the nature of quantum mechanics.

This led Albert Einstein to famously say: “God does not play dice with the universe”, showing his distaste for how the universe seems to be non-deterministic. There’s also quantum entanglement and string theory. For the sake of sanity (mine and yours), I’m not gonna go into those. You are welcome. I’m glad I didn’t go into the physics field.

Life is complex, and weird

Well, biology is no better. If you don’t like exceptions, biology is not the field for you. You probably learned in high school that the central dogma of biology is “DNA to RNA to protein”. A recent study showed that a bacterial system can make DNA using a protein template^[3]. There are countless phenomena in biology that make you say: “What in the world is that? How does that even work?”

Life is weird. In the movie Finding Nemo, Nemo’s dad Marlin would have turned into a female after his mom died. That is a little awkward. And the octopuses? They possess three hearts and blue blood. They have 500 million neurons with two-thirds spread throughout their eight arms, each capable of independently smelling, tasting, and even ‘thinking’ on its own. Octopuses might just be the real aliens on our planet^[4]. Most genomes, including ours, are littered with repeats and transposons, also known as jumping genes. These elements make up about 45% of the human genome, and some of them have virus-like origins. Life is much more complex and weird than we thought, and we are discovering new things every day.

Biological evolution is mind-boggling

Most life forms look nothing alike at the surface level: a maple tree is nothing like a tomato plant and a dog looks nothing like a fish. But now we know they all share deep common ancestry with each other. All modern cetaceans (whales and dolphins) descended from four-legged, land-dwelling mammals. Absolutely mind-blowing. And all tetrapods, including humans, are technically lobe-finned fishes. Who would’ve thought we were all related? Evolution is counterintuitive, unfathomable at times, but nonetheless beautiful. At the end of On the Origin of Species, Darwin proclaimed: “...from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.” Who could’ve come up with such a creative method?

Shouldn’t nature fit out expectation?

Materialists sought a deterministic universe, but quantum mechanics says probability is the best you can get. Anti-evolutionists tried to define creation “kinds”, but genetics tells us we are all part of the big family of life.

Nature is counterintuitive, bizarre, and weird. It often operates with rules that we don’t expect.

But why should it?

Why should our expectations of nature determine reality?

To Einstein’s rejection of quantum uncertainty, Bohr responded:

“Einstein, stop telling God what to do”.

About the author:

Hi! I am Chi-Jing Leow, a Christian biologist. I am also a follower of Jesus, and I care deeply about exploring the topics at the intersection of science and faith.

Share

Leave a comment

References:

1. Famous paradox attributed to physicist Niels Bohr.↩︎

2. Validated by the Double Slit Experiment.↩︎

3. https://www.science.org/content/article/scientists-stunned-fundamentally-new-way-life-produces-dna↩︎

4. I recently watched the movie Remarkably Bright Creatures. It was great.↩︎

I’ve posted a community policy here and added some reply rules in the comments section. Make sure to check them out before trashing me. :)

At the beginning of this publication, I shared the story of my journey from a Young Earth Creationist to an evolutionary biologist. If you are new here, I recommend you check it out first.

In that post, I didn’t get into the thought process of how I changed my mind on the age of the earth and evolution. I only said that I examined the evidence myself and found it convincing. Here, I will highlight the process of my investigation.

The impossibility of Young Earth Creationist models

I started my investigation by focusing on the age of the Earth issue because compared to evolution, it’s a less heated and sensitive topic (in my opinion and experience). Plus, there are Christians who accept an old earth – old earth creationists – who reject biological evolution. So, it seemed to be a good starting point to me.

In hindsight, I now understand why creation science ministries like Answers in Genesis press so aggressive on the age of the earth issue. Because if you can convince people that the Earth is young and the Gospel depends on it (which isn’t true), then you can virtually ignore the rest of the topics including evolution, death before the fall etc.

Young Earth Creationism might be theologically convenient at first, but it’s intellectually dishonest (here I’m referring to the kind of YEC preached by AiG and other creation science ministries).

I often tell people that it’s pointless to talk about evolution if they do not accept the fact that Earth is billions of years old. Six to ten thousand years is just not enough time for the history on Earth to unfold. There’s physically not enough space for the biomass we see in the fossil record to occupy the Earth within such a short timeframe. Darwin recognized that his theory of evolution would require a long timeline as well, and he hypothesized that the earth must be at least 100 million years old. But even his own estimate was far too small from what we know now. The earth is 4.54 billion years old, almost 45 times older than he anticipated.

Just FYI, the evidence for an ancient universe and Earth — such as distant starlight and radiometric dating — is largely independent from the evidence for biological evolution, such as genetics and fossils. It’s a misconception that scientists “invented” millions of years to accommodate evolution.

I’ve written down the most compelling evidence for the age of the Earth here. From the distant starlight to paleontology, the multiple independent lines of evidence tell the same story: our universe is ancient, much much older than a few thousand years old.

Additionally, the 6,000-year-old earth conclusion is based on many assumptions (all of which are either debatable or simple untrue).

1. The Bible intends to teach us scientific information (this is concordism).

2. The Hebrew word yom must mean 24-hr days here.

3. There is no time gap between Genesis 1:1 and the rest of the chapter.

4. Bishop Ussher’s calculation from the genealogy in Genesis is correct (and it must be unbroken, but the rest of the Bible suggests that genealogy often doesn’t include everyone).

5. All the scientific methods of dating and counting are unreliable (this is simple untrue).

Not only do the independent lines of evidence strongly support an ancient universe, the evidence makes it essentially impossible for any Young Earth model to work (e.g. the distant starlight and the biomass problem).

At the end, the mental gymnastics one must perform to overcome the scientific challenges, and the intellectual dissonance that Young Earth Creationism requires is just unsustainable and impossible to many Christians including myself.

It did not take much to convince me that the earth is not 6,000 years old. When you let go of the idea that Christianity requires a young earth model to work, the scientific evidence becomes utterly compelling and almost undeniable. The evidence cries out for an ancient earth and cosmos.

If you haven’t checked them out, see my articles: “Old Earth or Young Earth? What Does the Bible Actually Say” and “The Surprising Origins of Modern Young Earth Creationism”

More faithful ways to interpret Genesis

“If the creation account is not literal 24-hr days, then how should I understand it?” I asked myself as I wrestled with it.

By God’s grace I discovered John Walton’s The Lost World series1, which was very helpful to me and many others. I highly recommend it.

The creation story makes more sense in light of its Ancient Near Eastern culture. When you stop trying to scientifically explain why there was light before the sun, you are a step closer to understanding what Genesis meant to the original audience.

The fossil record – species changed over time

Before we talk about evolution, we need to recognize one simple fact, which is that different groups of animals lived in different periods of earth’s history. The fossil record is the place to start. It’s very simple: In undisturbed sedimentary rock layers, the deeper you dig, the deeper in time you find yourself. The most recent layers are on top, and the oldest layers are at the bottom. It’s pretty straightforward, and most geological strata follow this pattern. When they don’t, it is usually because the strata have been folded, faulted, overturned, or disturbed. But the order of rock layers is virtually consistent across the globe.

To my YEC friends, here is something you need to know: No human fossils have been found with dinosaurs. Not even one. Why? Because humans never lived with the dinosaurs! I know this might be heartbreaking for some people. But we need to stop lying to them that there were dinosaurs on the ark, like how we lie to them about Santa Claus (sorry for the tangent).

You don’t need to be a paleontologist to notice the pattern in the fossil record: species changed over time, generally from simpler life forms to more complex body plans in later Earth’s history.

Okay, if you are still following along, we have now established two facts:

1. The earth is really, really old.

2. New species appeared throughout deep geological time.

The most natural question following this is: How? How did we get new species?

Miraculous intervention vs. natural processes

As I explored how God could have created, I broadly had two options: Old earth creationism and evolutionary creationism. Both views accept an ancient timeline; they mainly differ in how God created. The former generally believes that God miraculously intervened (de novo creation of species) throughout history to sustain and produce new life forms, while the latter believes that God simply used natural processes (biological evolution) to bring forth the diversity of life.

Now, some have accused me of not believing that God could have created miraculously (snaps a finger and bring them into existence). But this is not true. I believe in miracles and divine interventions (I will write something about it in the near future; exorcism), but when it comes to the evidence, it strongly suggests that God used natural processes (evolution) to create new species.

Additionally, I recognized that evolution is often taught with multiple layers of misunderstandings and misconceptions, but only among Christians. It’s also described as a straw-man argument in many Christian apologetics (both a bad and dangerous thing). Therefore, I investigated the evidence for evolution presented not by those who reject it, but from both Christians and atheists who accept evolution.

Evolution: Inference to the Best Explanation

First, the reason why the majority of scientists and virtually all biologists accept evolution is because it is the Inference to the Best Explanation, meaning that you conclude a hypothesis is most likely to be true because it provides the best and most plausible explanation for the available data.2

Second, the evidence for biological evolution comes from different fields of study. The independent lines of evidence tell a unified story: species changed over time and are related through common descent.

When Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace independently reached the same conclusion about evolution, they did not have the same evidence we have today. They relied on evidence from the fossil record, comparative anatomy, biogeography, artificial selection, and other observations from the natural world.

But the most compelling evidence for me lies within our DNA.

Genetics rules out the “common Designer” argument

When Darwin proposed the theory of biological evolution, he didn’t know anything about genetics. So when scientists discovered DNA as the code of life, the theory of evolution was put to the test. And it turned out Darwin was right. (Dang it!)

Many Christians argue that the commonality between organisms only means they were designed and made by the same intelligent mind, not because they share common ancestry. Here, I discussed how genetics basically rules out that hypothesis. As a geneticist, the evidence for common descent outweighs and surpasses the argument from “common designer”.

Common descent is the best explanation, not common design.

The consistency and growing of evidence

Since On the origin of species was published in 1859, the evidence for biological evolution has only been growing. Transitional fossils have been recovered from the exact place and time in the rock layers we would predict if evolution were true. Numerous examples of macroevolution (whales, humans, horses, ceratopsian dinosaurs etc.) have been described in detail based on the fossil and genetic evidence.

The molecular clock (how fast DNA evolves) of a species matches the fossil age of when it diverged from the last common ancestor. The predictability of evolution: where (geological location) and when (which rock layers) we should expect to find the transitional fossils. The vestigial structures in organisms and the harmful elements and genetic scars in the DNA point to common ancestry rather than de novo creation. Biogeography explains where animals are found today; why we only have kangaroos in Australia for example. The consistency between independent lines of evidence that support biological evolution is not only beautiful, but utterly convincing.

Have we discovered more questions about evolution since Darwin’s time? Absolutely, that’s how good science and research work. But we also have uncovered other mechanisms that drive evolution too. The overall evidence continues to support biological evolution - that we share common ancestry with other life forms.

In the end, evolution is the inference to the best explanation of how life diversified over time.

Note: evolution explains diversification after life exists. It doesn’t explain the origin of life - abiogenesis - which is a different field of research.

What about Intelligent Design?

Many Christians also hold to the Intelligent Design (ID) belief – promoted by Stephen Meyer and others - which essentially claims that we can scientifically detect God’s hands behind creation. They say that life we see today is too complex to have evolved, it’s impossible, therefore there must be an Intelligent Mind behind it.

This is different from the traditional intelligent design (lower case to note the difference!) theology which most orthodox Christians would agree with: creation is intelligently designed because the Creator is intelligent. This traditional view has nothing to do with whether we can scientifically prove God’s fingerprints behind his creation. The birth of Intelligent Design was to counter having to learn about evolution in the classroom. There is a whole history behind this (maybe one day I will write about).

At the end, Intelligent Design is essentially a god of the gaps argument against evolution. The irreducible complexity argument by ID proponents is based on misunderstandings of how evolution actually works.

You can accept evolution and still believe in God

If you are an evolutionary creationist or theistic evolutionist like me, who is a Christian and accepts evolution as the way God created, we still affirm the following:

1. God is the ultimate creator of all things.

2. Humans are made in the image of God.

3. God desires a relationship with mankind.

The more I engage in this topic, the more I find Christians who see no contradiction between evolution and Christian faith, including C.S. Lewis, Tim Keller, Billy Graham, Karl Barth, J.I. Packer, N.T. Wright, just to name a few.

There’s a book published by BioLogos and InterVarsity Press called “How I changed my mind about evolution”. It’s a collection of stories from evangelical Christians, theologians, and scientists who have come to accept evolutionary science and faith. I recommend to check it out.

How I changed my mind in four steps:

1. I examined the evidence for the age of the earth and found it virtually impossible for any Young Earth model to work.

2. I learned that there are more faithful ways to interpret the creation account in Genesis other than the Young Earth Creationism preached to us as kids.

3. As I investigated the evidence for biological evolution, it became clear to me that Darwin’s theory of evolution isn’t “just a theory”. It is the inference to the best explanation of the origin of species. The consistency between independent lines of evidence shows why it’s beyond reasonable doubt that evolution happened and it is real.

4. I discovered many faithful Christians (both theologians and scientists) who do not see a conflict between biological evolution and the Christian faith, and there are ways to harmonize what we read in Scripture and what we observe in the natural world. Praise God for that!

In Conclusion

I hope this helps you understand how someone like me came to the conclusion of evolutionary creationism. As someone who grew up as a young earth creationist, I was not brainwashed by the “secular” mainstream science to “believe” in evolution. Rather, I examined the evidence myself - from Scripture and science - and listened to both Christians and atheists on this subject before changing my mind.

If starlight is screaming for an ancient cosmos and genetics is leaving compelling clues for common descent, then I think it is time to abandon Young Earth Creationism as the default “faithful” interpretation of Genesis. I’m not saying we should use nature to determine how we interpret Scripture. But often this is how we realize we’ve been interpreting the Bible the wrong way (geocentric readings and global flood for examples). When the physical evidence tells a very different story, we should at least be open to reexamining how we have interpreted the Bible.

P/S.

“Wait, wait, wait - hold on! What about human evolution? How did you change your mind on that?” I can see one of you shouting this.

I will get to that eventually, I hope. It will be a long series. And if you can’t tell, I am trying to build a case since the beginning, one post at a time.

Also, let me know if you have any questions, concerns, or maybe you’re just really enjoying or hating what I write here. I’m eager to hear form you :) See ya later.

About the author:

Hi! I am Chi-Jing Leow, a Christian biologist. I am also a follower of Jesus, and I care deeply about exploring the topics at the intersection of science and faith.

Share

Leave a comment

References:

Note: This is a working draft. Please let me know if you have any suggestions.

Someone told me that my publication name was too long and they misread it as “Of Evolving Gnomes🧙🏻‍♂️and the Everlasting Life”.

Gnomes are these dwarf-like creatures that live underground and guard their treasures.

Genome is an organism’s entire DNA content.

There is a difference.

But hey, maybe now I am gonna call all my subscribers little gnomes🧙🏼.

So here I want to set some guidelines and expectations before we get too excited.

This Space Is For Everyone

Whether you identify as a Christian, atheist, seeker, or gnome, you are welcome here. I want to cultivate a space where science and faith and engage in meaningful and fruitful dialogues.

A few expectations for this community:

• Be respectful: You do not have to agree with someone to treat them with dignity.

• Be kind: Assume there is a real person behind every comment…

• Stay curious: Ask questions to understand, not just to win an argument.

• Give people the benefit of the doubt: Tone can be hard to read online, and people often come from very different backgrounds.

• Communicate clearly: Sometimes I have to read a comment 5 times just to understand what they are trying to say. Help everygnome out.

Respond Expectations

Let’s be honest and realistic, nobody can respond to every comment and reply. Gnomes are busy; everygnome knows that.

So when someone does not reply to you within the standard 19-minute Substack response window, they are probably just digging somewhere.

No one is obligated to respond to you, so please see every reply as a courtesy, not something you are entitled to!

Disagreements Are Always Welcome

I’ve had many wonderful disagreements with many people here. Try to put yourself in another gnome’s shoes and understand where they are coming from.

Do gnomes wear shoes?

It helps to understand why someone holds a particular view before judging them for what they believe.

If You Got Blocked, Here Is Why…

I’ve encountered enough trolls here, so I adopted the zero tolerant approach. Gnomes exhibit the following behavior will be sent to destination blocked immediately. No warning, no exception.

• Hate speech, name-calling, racism, disrespectful behavior, and similar conduct

• Bad-faith questioning or sealioning, like when the Pharisees tried to trap Jesus with questions

• Clearly being a jerk—oh yes, we can tell

• Self-promotion with no genuine interest in engaging; no one likes that

• Spam, which will be muted at first and blocked if it continues

If you find yourself blocked, don’t worry—you’re not the first one.

So Grateful, So Thankful

I just crossed 300 subs this week! I am genuinely thankful for each and everygnome of you. Okay, I have to be honest, I don’t really like gnomes. I think they are a little creepy.

Sincerely yours,

Chi-Jing

It’s not surprising that the Facebook algorithm has picked up my interest in the science and Christian faith topic. So it’s always recommending these “atheism vs. Christianity” or “evolution vs. creationism” kind of FB groups.

My Facebook feed is already drowned in ads and whatever Zuckerberg thinks I should know, to the point that I cannot even see the photos my parents posted this morning. No thank you, Zuck. I will pass.

One day as I was doing my regular FB strolls, I saw this “Creationism” page that piqued my interest because I noticed some of my friends were in it (their names shall not be named 🙂). Yes, people can see which public groups you are part of.

“Is it worth sharing my thoughts there as a Christian biologist?” I thought to myself naively.

I am curious to see what’s going on. After all… why not? Why shouldn’t I join it?

The definition of “Creationism” here

There are almost 100,000 people in this group. I don’t know the exact demographics of the people, but certainly people from all around the world.

On the guidelines and rules, the definition of Creationism is listed as:

“Creationism, the belief that the universe and all life in it arose thru an act of divine creation.”

Divine creation. That usually means not through natural processes like evolution. I was right, the majority of the Christians here are Young Earth Creationists (YEC).

I was dropped into a Creationism debate war zone

I did not expect this to be a debate group, at least I don’t think it intended to be one. My suspicion is that it started with only Christians, but slowly atheists started to trickle in to see what was going on. They were curious just like me.

The two major camps are creationism vs. evolution. You either believe God created life thru an act of divine creation or you’re an atheist who “believes” in evolution. No other choice. At least it seems like that.

From the Christian side, they present “evidence” for a divine Creator, such as how evolution is obviously wrong, a global flood that killed all the dinosaurs, and the universe is only a few thousand years old. Their content almost exclusively comes from creation science ministries like Answers in Genesis, Institute of Creation Research, and Intelligent Design Movement. Nothing new.

What Christians show and claim here reveals a vast ignorance of the subject, and it is embarrassing to watch. The misunderstanding of evolution and of how science works made me feel somewhat hopeless. Take a deep breath. Phew.

Atheists fought back with scientific evidence for evolution, ancient earth, and with claims that the Bible is a fairy tale, and so on. They say there could not possibly be a God because of what we see in the natural world.

Evolution is real, therefore the Bible must be false. It is an easy conclusion for them because the Christians made it so.

Both sides attack a strawman version of the other side. It is not really a debate anymore, because everybody is just mocking each other with closed ears and closed minds. It is an absolute clown fiesta 🤡—a circus show.

This is the conflict model between science and faith at its peak.

Who’s more open minded? Not the Christians…

Just when I thought it couldn’t get worse. I saw this poll in the group. It’s a survey on the position on religion and openness to change.

Of all the people who took the poll, 25% are atheists and 75% are Christians.

Among believers, 29% accept mainstream science, which is higher than I expected. Twenty-five percent are YEC but open to change, but a solid 45% of YECs say they will never change their position.

Among the atheists, 25% say they would never change their position, but 75% are open to believing in God if there is solid proof. I really do not like how belief in God is tied to YEC here. You can absolutely be a Christian and accept an ancient earth and common descent.

What bothers me most is that almost half of the Christians here claim that “nothing could ever convince them to change their YEC view.” Personally, there are very, very few things I would say like this about, not even evolution, and I am a scientist.

The ironic thing is that these YECs keep posting about the supposed “scientific evidence” for a creator, arguing that it “proves” God’s existence.

But if nothing could ever convince them to change their view, why present any arguments or evidence for YEC at all?

If someone accepts either evolution or YEC because of the evidence, then they should also be open to the possibility that their position could be wrong if they are presented with compelling data.

Seventy-five percent of the atheists are open-minded, but only 25% of the Christians are.

Why I chose not to engage

If you thought I was going to jump into hand-to-hand combat with them, I am sorry to disappoint you. I remained silent the entire time I was in this group. I did not make a single comment. Why? Because it is virtually pointless. If you have ever seen two heated people arguing and talking past each other, this group is exactly that.

Any post or comment would be bombarded by both Christians and atheists, because both sides believe they are right and that the other side is clearly wrong and stupid. No productive dialogue can happen in that kind of environment.

A warning from Saint Augustine

It is obvious that both sides are doing something wrong. But what troubles me most is seeing Christians confidently make false scientific claims in areas where they are not experts. In many cases, they show a vast ignorance of the subject.

What impact does this have on our witness when Christians do this?

Saint Augustine, one of the most influential early Christian theologians, warned us about this 1,600 years ago…

In the Literal Meaning of Genesis1, Augustine writes:

Non-Christians are not fools. Just because they do not believe in God doesn’t mean they cannot study the world and draw evidence-based scientific conclusions. That doesn’t mean their interpretations cannot be wrong. But when over 98% of scientists accept an ancient universe and evolution2, including many, many Christian scientists, that should make you pause and think.

God gave us science as the best method for understanding our natural world. It’s a form of common grace that is not restricted only to Christians.

“But the Bible clearly teaches…”

Often I hear from Christians say that Scripture clearly teaches that the earth is young or humans were created through divine creation. But what they don’t realize is that there are different views on creation within Christianity. Genuine and faithful Christians hold different views on these topics. YEC is not the only one and Christians should not present it as if it were the Gospel.

Many early church fathers, including Saint Augustine, believed that God revealed himself in the ‘Two Books’: Scripture and nature. Although the Bible is inerrant in what it teaches or affirms, our interpretations of it can be, and often are, wrong.

So when there seems to be a conflict between what we learn from Scripture and what we find in the natural world, we ought to check our interpretations of both books, not just one.

Humility for the Gospel

But the real danger is this, St. Augustine continued:

When Christians confidently claim that the earth is young and that evolution is wrong because the Bible says so, they make it very difficult for scientifically minded seekers to even consider Christianity.

To them, and to most Christian scientists, the evidence for an ancient earth and common descent is overwhelming. Believing in YEC is asking them to abandon their rationality and deny the reality of the natural world.

If Christians deny the basic truths about the natural world, how can we expect nonbelievers to trust what we say about the unseen kingdom of God?

They cannot even get to know who Jesus is, which is the essence of Christianity, because they are gatekept at the door by a certain view of creation. How sad is that?

St. Augustine’s wise words should really be a warning to us in how we approach the science-and-faith topic. As Christians, we need to do better than this.

Other related posts:

From Young Earth Creationist to Evolutionary Biologist: My Personal Story

The Surprising Origins of Modern Young Earth Creationism

Did Animals Die Before The Fall?

About the author:

Hi! I am Chi-Jing Leow, a Christian biologist. I am also a follower of Jesus, and I care deeply about exploring the topics at the intersection of science and faith.

Share

Leave a comment

References:

If you are in a room full of biologists and want to start a fight, you can simply ask: ‘What is a species?’ Or better yet: ‘Do subspecies exist?’

Then sit back, grab some popcorn, and watch them quarrel.

Why is it so hard to define what a species is? To start off, there are about 26 recognized species concepts in the scientific literature1. Here, however, I will highlight just four of the major and most commonly used species concepts, along with the strengths and weaknesses of each.

Morphological species concept

The morphological species concept classifies organisms into species based on their morphology, or physical appearance. Individuals within the same species are more similar to one another than to individuals from different species.

This is one of the oldest methods used in classification, including in the Linnaean system of taxonomy: domain, kingdom, phylum, class, and so on. It emphasizes the outward appearance of organisms rather than behavior, in part because classification was often done on preserved specimens rather than live animals.

One strength of this method is that 99.9% of all species that have ever lived on Earth are now extinct, and most of the time all we have are their fossils. For creatures that we know only from the fossil record, like dinosaurs, we classify them by describing and comparing their morphology. Fun fact: paleontologists recently found new, and perhaps conclusive, evidence that Nanotyrannus is a separate genus rather than simply a juvenile T. rex2, ending the decades-long debate on this question.

But the strength of this approach is also its weakness. If a species can produce different phenotypes, a phenomenon called polymorphism, such as in Gouldian finches, one could mistakenly classify them as different species based on morphology alone. Many organisms are not only polymorphic, but also sexually dimorphic, meaning males and females look different.

Additionally, there are also cryptic species, which look nearly identical but are genetically distinct. For example, giraffes were once thought to belong to a single species, but genetic studies now support recognizing four species3. This makes the morphological species concept difficult to apply.

Biological species concept

Coined and popularized by evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr in the mid-20th century, the biological species concept defines species as interbreeding natural populations that are reproductively isolated from other groups. At first glance, the concept is straightforward and easy to understand. But in practice, there are some important nuances.

For example, all three wolf species — gray, red, and Ethiopian wolves — can interbreed and produce viable offspring. According to this species concept, some would argue that there is really only one true wolf species because of hybridization. Additionally, domesticated dogs (Canis lupus familiaris) are technically a subspecies of the gray wolf (Canis lupus).

Many species can produce hybrids, which is more common in plants than in animals, yet their offspring are often infertile, such as mules and ligers. This species concept is limited to sexually reproducing organisms, and many organisms reproduce asexually. It is also not applicable to extinct species known only from fossils. With allopatric, or geographically isolated, populations, it is difficult to know whether they once were, or still are, capable of producing fertile offspring in nature. Lastly, this definition of species is not always helpful for conservation efforts. If all wolves and dogs are considered one species, what makes gray wolves in Yellowstone distinct from Ethiopian wolves?

If two species can produce viable offspring in captivity, but it never happens in the wild, does that make them separate species?

Ecological species concept

In this concept, a species is defined as a set of organisms exploiting, or adapted to, a particular ecological niche. Unlike the biological species concept, the ecological species concept focuses more on functional roles than on reproductive isolation.

A species can be thought of as a group of populations that compete more with their own kind than with members of other species. This is because organisms that are more similar to one another tend to have more overlapping needs. As a result, they are expected to compete for the same niche and are therefore more likely to belong to the same species.

In the diagram above, grasshopper sparrows live in grasslands, and they are more likely to compete with their own kind than with black warblers, which live in dense oak forests. The ecological species concept is mainly about ecological competition and niche occupation.

One criticism of this method is that it depends on how we define niches, and that is not always clear. Many species also change their niche over the course of their lives. Second, it is not always easy to determine the degree to which two or more organisms are actually competing ecologically.

Just tell me what a species is already!

Phylogenetic species concept

Closely related to the evolutionary species concept, the phylogenetic species concept is often associated with paleontologist George Gaylord Simpson (1951).

“A single lineage of ancestor-descendant populations that maintains its identity from other such lineages over time and space, possessing its own independent evolutionary fate and historical tendencies”4

If you take the DNA of some organisms and compare how similar they are, you can group them into something called a cladogram, or phylogenetic tree, with each branch representing a lineage, like the one above for foxes and wolves. If you extend this to all major living things on Earth, you get the so-called tree of life, because all life shares common ancestry at some point in the past.

A species is then defined as the tip of a phylogenetic branch. This is usually determined using certain parameters or thresholds of similarity in DNA sequence. It may feel a bit arbitrary or vague, but in many ways that simply reflects how fluid species really are in nature. Nature does not care about our definitions of species. Species are all related, and life never stops evolving.

The biggest strength of this approach is that it takes the relatedness of organisms seriously by comparing their genetic blueprints. If you have the DNA of an organism, even if you have never seen it before, you can often figure out how it is related to other living things on Earth and where it fits in the tree of life.

The challenge is that every species has its own evolutionary history, and some species evolve faster than others. Rates of molecular evolution — how quickly DNA sequences change over time — can differ drastically. For example, the scientific consensus is that tunicates (Urochordata) are more closely related to vertebrates than lancelets (Cephalochordata). However, tunicates have undergone more extensive genomic rearrangements than lancelets. That is one reason researchers often use lancelets to model the ancestral state of vertebrates5.

Another challenge is that resolving deep phylogenetic relationships is often difficult, because every living lineage has been evolving for millions or even billions of years. This often leads to debates and sometimes even major revisions in how we understand certain groups to be related6. That does not mean biologists doubt the big picture of evolution, or the tree of life itself. It just means there is still debate about where exactly some of the branches go.

Still, molecular phylogenetics often gives us more confidence in evolutionary relationships than morphology alone. When DNA sequencing became widely used, Darwin’s theory of evolution was put to the test, and molecular phylogenetics not only supported common descent but also helped us better understand the mechanisms behind how species evolve.

As we move toward sequencing all life on Earth7, the power of the phylogenetic species concept is only beginning to be realized. As an evolutionary geneticist, it is probably not surprising that this is my favorite species concept.

So what is a species?

In the end, no one truly knows what a species is, and no single definition can fully capture that. Not only because there are many ways to define it, but also because species exist along a continuum, a continuous spectrum. So we should not expect to be able to classify organisms into neat binary bins, and maybe we should stop trying to force nature into them.

Each species concept has its own strengths and limitations. Some are better suited for morphological data, while others are more useful for conservation or for testing evolutionary hypotheses.

Unlike mathematics or physics, which are often bound to certain laws and constants, biological species are hard to define by strict rules. There are no hard boundaries between species, but rather gradients and transitions shaped by common descent. That is why the phylogenetic species concept is my favorite: it best captures the evolutionary relationships among organisms.

I hope by now you can better understand how challenging it is to define what a species is. And once you recognize the fluidity of species, you are one step closer to understanding why evolution is the centerpiece of biology.

About the author:

Hi! I am Chi-Jing Leow, a Christian biologist. I am also a follower of Jesus, and I care deeply about exploring the topics at the intersection of science and faith.

Share

Leave a comment

References:

I was pleasantly surprised that they offered free tickets to students on opening weekend. I ended up paying only 19 cents because of some add-on convenience fee. Not too bad.

Who am I? Should you trust what I say?

I am an evolutionary geneticist. I have a BA and an MS in biology, and I am currently working on my PhD. That is just to say that I might know a little bit more than the average person watching this film. I am also a Protestant Christian. The core theology I hold to can be summarized by the Nicene and Apostles’ Creeds.

So I am reviewing this as a Christian scientist. Spoilers Alert!

My central problem with the film is not that it argues for design or purpose. As a Christian, I fully accept that. My problem is that the documentary treats biological evolution as if it were inherently purposeless and meaningless.

And that, to me, is the biggest issue with the film.

Opening the curtains

Lee Strobel, the author of The Case for Christ, opens the documentary by inviting the audience to consider the evidence for themselves.

“There have been two stories told of the same reality. One says there is an intelligent Designer. The other says we evolved in a mindless way by accident. Which one is true?” (paraphrased)

What is the story of everything? They asked the key question.

The documentary spends almost an hour talking about the Big Bang and fine-tuning. I will dedicate more time reviewing the biology portion, since that is my area of expertise.

Chapter 1 and 2: The “beginning” of the universe and fine-tuning for life

The documentary gives a fairly comprehensive history of how modern cosmology shifted from the idea of a static, eternal universe to a finite and expanding universe. The discovery of the cosmic microwave background and the redshift of distant starlight point to the universe once being in a hot, dense state before expanding outward.

Stephen Hawking and others calculated backward toward what is often called the “singularity.” Fred Hoyle also played a key role in the discovery of fine-tuning, starting with the precise conditions needed to make carbon and moving toward many other constants that appear incredibly narrow. The universe seems to be finely tuned to allow life. Even the position of Earth seems to be in the right place. The Goldilocks universe and the Goldilocks Earth.

I am not an astrophysicist, so correct me if you are an expert in this. Meyer and others argued strongly that the Big Bang was indeed the beginning of space and time. Is this true? I think the more scientifically accurate way to say it is that our modern understanding of physics breaks down at the singularity. Currently, we do not know what is beyond that. Could this be the beginning of spacetime? Maybe. Regardless, I believe that God is the ultimate creator of all things.

Recently, the James Webb Space Telescope has found many surprisingly mature galaxies shortly after the Big Bang1, potentially rewriting our understanding of the early universe and cosmic timeline. I also did not like how Meyer mocked theoretical physicists who propose the multiverse as an explanation for fine-tuning. First of all, the multiverse theory is not completely unreasonable. It might be unlikely, but it is still plausible. Second, even if multiverses exist, that does not necessarily rule God out either. Why would God be limited to creating only one universe? To claim that the multiverse theory is just an atheist attempt to work around fine-tuning felt unfair to me.

Chapter 3: Life. The bacterial flagellum “problem” strikes again

This is the same argument proposed by Michael Behe 30 years ago in his book Darwin’s black box (1996). He argued that the machineries of the bacterial flagellum are too complex to have evolved by incremental steps. A classic “irreducible” complexity example promoted by ID.

In Chinese we call it 炒冷饭, stir frying leftovers or repackaging old content. I do not need to go into details on this. Here are some resources2 and a paper3 if you would like to read about it. If you like videos, Stated Clearly recently published a series of videos on YouTube describing how flagellum evolved. Nevertheless, it’s worth noting that Behe himself seems to accept evolution by common descent4.

Darwin did you know? That your theory one day will…

Meyer quoted Darwin from On the Origin of Species:

“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.5”

Meyer then said that Darwin did not know about these irreducibly complex organs, and that evolution was proposed as a “designer’s substitute.”

This is a serious misrepresentation.

Of course Darwin didn’t know everything we know today. But to say that these “irreducible complex” structures disprove evolution is just plain wrong. The blood clotting cascade, for example, was once proposed as an example of irreducible complexity, but we now have evidence for how it evolved through processes such as gene duplication67. Second, the theory of evolution is based on multiple independent lines of evidence, to say evolution was merely the alternative explanation of God’s work is utterly false.

Modern cell biology and genetics did not disprove evolution. If anything, the discovery of DNA and genomics only strengthened the case for common descent by giving us a clearer mechanism for how variation arises and how it can be tinkered by natural selection.

If we can show, which we already have in many cases, how these complex structures evolved in a stepwise fashion, does that mean life is not intelligently designed? I don’t think so.

To me, this is where the irreducible complexity argument becomes dangerously close to a God-of-the-gaps argument.

The origin of life

Abiogenesis, the process of life arising from non-life, is still an active field of research with not one but multiple hypotheses.

James Tour is the biochemist who champions this section for Intelligent Design. He said that “the poor early Earth was mindless… and molecules don’t come together on their own.”

Intelligent Design proponents argue that abiogenesis is virtually impossible. This lies outside my expertise. Is abiogenesis really impossible? Or just improbable? I don’t know. Some suggest that maybe we have been looking in the wrong place. What if life originated outside Earth? After all, the five building blocks of DNA have been found on asteroids8.

That does not solve every problem, of course. But it does show that the origin-of-life question is still an active scientific question, not a settled debate.

Here is my thought. If one day scientists make new discoveries and propose a solid model for abiogenesis, how would Christians react? I expect the ID folks and many Christians would not embrace it. We might even say “it’s just atheists trying to explain something without invoking the divine.” Do you see the dilemma?

The information enigma

In the film, they present the information enigma - where did information come from? The definition of information is another topic worth discussing in detail. But Meyer stated information is not just a unique set of symbols, but the symbols have to have functions. How DNA molecules attract to each other might be due to biochemical forces (bonds), but the arrangement of the DNA is not due to that.

John Lennox said that when we see information, we always associate it with intelligence, with a mind. Meyer illustrated this with an animation of a bunch of monkeys typing random words on keyboards, suggesting that information cannot come from randomness. This is a misleading way to frame evolution!

Here is what I disagree with. The order of DNA is not merely caused by the biochemical bonds between nucleotides, but certain genetic arrangements (or code if you will) are more likely to get passed down to the next generation. While mutation can be sporadic - generating random sequences, the selection on the genetic variation are not random at all. That is because when you have a beneficial trait in an organism, the genetic codes underlying that are selected by natural selection. That is not monkeys typing randomly and somehow producing Shakespeare. This is self-replicating life, with strong selection acting on certain combination of genetic variations.

New “information” can certainly arise through mutation and evolution. One common mechanism is by gene and genome duplications, which is part of my PhD work. Research has shown that even randomly generated DNA sequences can have some function, or even improved function, compared with the original sequence.91011

The problem of gratuitous beauty?

The problem of gratuitous beauty is a philosophical claim drawn from biological observations. The argument is that extravagant and “unnecessary” beauty in nature far exceeds what is required for survival or evolution, suggesting a divine Creator rather than just natural selection. Meyer said this is a “huge problem” for evolution. Is that so?

Their assumption about evolution seems to be that everything we see in nature has to serve some specific evolutionary purpose. But this is not true.

A trait can persist in a population if it is neither strongly advantageous nor strongly harmful to an organism’s survival. Additionally, deleterious or harmful traits can continue to be passed down when selection is not strong enough to remove them from the population.

Second, we all know that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. One can easily conclude that a mandarin duck is beautiful. But what about a naked mole rat that never sees sunlight? A bunny? A tarantula? Is one more beautiful because it’s more intelligently designed? Does God show favoritism in what he creates?

Yes, as a biologist, I am fascinated by the tremendous beauty in nature. But I do not have to draw that conclusion from something that serves no evolutionary purpose. Nature is beautiful as it is. The gorgeous peacock feathers displayed for courtship are still beautiful even if they serve a role in survival and reproduction.

I think creation made through evolution is beautiful and wonderful. Just because something has an evolutionary purpose does not diminish its beauty.

For millions and billions of years, creatures evolved without human eyes to see them. Distant black holes crash and form supernovae — the greatest fireworks that most human beings never saw, except God.

Creation is for God, and beauty is according to his standards, not ours. Nature is beautiful not just because we can see it, but because of him who made all things.

Meyer and Dawkins both make philosophical claims

When you draw philosophical conclusions from scientific evidence, you are making a metaphysical leap of faith. You are crossing from a scientific claim to a philosophical claim, such as “there is an intelligent Designer and Creator,” as Meyer and others suggest.

When Richard Dawkins writes, “The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference,” that is also a philosophical and worldview claim.

Science describes the mechanisms. It can tell us how stars form, how species change over time, how genes mutate, how traits are inherited, and how natural selection acts on variation. But whether these natural processes are ultimately purposeless or guided by God falls outside scientific inquiry.

That is a philosophical and theological question. This distinction matters a lot!

My biggest problem with this film

Darwinian evolution is a scientific theory, not a philosophical claim. I have written about this elsewhere, including some of C.S. Lewis’s thoughts on evolution.

Many people abuse evolution to support their worldview like Richard Dawkins. But many Christians fall for the same mistake in the opposite direction, including Meyer.

In the documentary, Meyer frames evolution as a mindless and meaningless process. But that is not a scientific claim. That is a philosophical claim!

Just like entropy in the universe increases over time, or water molecules cycle through atmosphere and rivers, evolution is just what happens to life over time. It is a mechanism. It is metaphysically neutral, meaning it does not say whether life has a purpose or not.

Evolution ≠ mindless & meaningless

The evidence for evolution is overwhelming. From the fossil record to comparative morphology to genetics, the evidence points to common descent. I have written elsewhere about how genetics rules out the “common designer” argument.

Here is what I want you to know: like myself, there are many Christian scientists who accept evolution.

You do not have to choose between accepting evolution and believing that the world has purpose and meaning.

God can work through anything, even evolution. He is behind the history of life just as he is behind the history of the universe.

Overall review

Nothing presented in the film is really “new.” The arguments from the Big Bang and fine-tuning have been around for a while. I generally accept a finite, non-eternal universe and the fine-tuning for life as compelling evidence for a Creator. But I think their view of the multiverse theory was unfair.

The ID critiques of evolution based on “irreducible complexity,” the information enigma, and the problem of gratuitous beauty have not challenged, let alone overturned, Darwin’s theory of evolution.

Would I recommend this film to others? I don’t know. I think it could be a good conversation starter. But there is some serious misinformation about evolution in it.

Would a non-scientist enjoy this film? I don’t know, perhaps not. The documentary is an hour and 45 minutes long. My wife kindly joined me at the theater, but she said the film was long and she did not understand most of it. For people who have taken some college-level science courses or have a degree in science, they might find it fascinating or entertaining. Though I disagree with quite a few things, the film was decently well made. I took seven pages of notes in the theater to write this review…

Would an atheist scientist change their mind after watching this? Maybe, but like I said, when you look at the evidence, you still have to make a metaphysical leap of faith to claim that there is or is not a God.

The Third Story. A Better One.

At the end of the film, Meyer circles back to the opening question:

“So, what is the story of everything? Is the universe operating by purely naturalistic processes and random chance, or does everything have the fingerprint of the Creator?”

The film presents the choice as one between a teleological worldview, where the universe has purpose, and a dysteleological worldview, where it does not. Without hesitation, I would identify with a world that is full of purpose and meaning.

But here is the catch: a purposeful and meaningful worldview and evolution can coexist. They are not mutually exclusive.

There is a third option. I’d argue it’s a better and more accurate story of reality.

My whole work on this platform has been about showing the scientific evidence for evolution while also showing how it does not necessarily contradict a Christian worldview.

As an evolutionary biologist, I am mind-blown every time I learn about how a novel trait or phenotype evolved through evolution. That is so creative. And I know the God behind this.

I am not more amazed when something “could not have been made by accident or chance.” I am more amazed when I discover how a particular gene or function evolved, and I think to myself: “This is how God did it.” And he lets us play the detective game to find out. How fun is that?

At the end of On the Origin of Species, Darwin concluded

“There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.”

Darwin saw how wonderful and creative evolution is in bringing about the diversity of life. Evolution does not rule out meaning and purpose.

Christianity tells us the ultimate meaning and purpose of our existence, and evolution describes the process of how God created life.

That, to me, is the more robust and compelling story of everything.

P.S. I wanted to publish this as soon as possible because the documentary is rolling out this weekend, and I suspect some people, especially Christians, will watch it. That is why I wanted to put my review out there. If you find it helpful or know someone who might want to read it, feel free to share the link.

I especially welcome people with different views to comment—with respect and sincerity, of course. I look forward to engaging on this topic.

About the author:

Hi! I am Chi-Jing Leow, an evolutionary geneticist. I am also a follower of Jesus, and I care deeply about exploring the topics at the intersection of science and faith.

Share

Leave a comment

References:

The first and most obvious reason is that people have different hermeneutics, the theory and method of interpretation, and in their exegesis, the practice of interpretation.

Another reason, which is discussed less often but is equally important, is the underlying approach people take to this subject.

This matters because people often reject certain claims not only because of the claims themselves, but because of how they think science and faith should relate. By the end of this article, I hope you will have a clearer understanding of the different ways people approach this topic.

Denis Alexander, a British molecular biologist and author, proposed four models for how science and faith can relate to one another1. Ian Barbour developed similar categories, though I will leave his work for another time.

Model 1: Conflict

In the conflict model, science and religion are viewed as natural enemies and as fundamentally opposed to one another. They are competing against each other and cannot be true at the same time. What religions and science claim are mutually exclusive and cannot be reconciled.

One side is scientism - the belief that science and the scientific method are the best and only way to render any truth about the world and reality2. Richard Dawkins is one of the most famous examples of this perspective.

On the other side, biblical fundamentalists believe the Bible is the only reliable source we have to derive any truth in the world, including all scientific truths. For the past decades, the leading voice of this is probably Ken Ham.

Very often, people who operate with this conflict view speak ignorantly about the other subject. Scientists talk down on the Bible and regard religious people as unlearned folks. Christian leaders make false scientific claims, making fools of themselves. Both are crossing their boundaries of expertise, this is sometimes called epistemic trespassing.

However, this is a rather historically recent thing. We know many early pioneer scientists were devout Christians. Many faithful Christian scientists today accept the scientific consensus on age of the earth and evolution and see no conflict between science and religion.

Model 2: Fusion

In the fusion model, people believe that science and Scripture can be blended together in a way that allows scientific facts to be drawn directly from the Bible. This approach is often called concordism.

A common example of this view is the claim that “the Bible is not a science textbook, but everything in it is scientifically accurate.”

This happens when readers fail to recognize that the Bible is an ancient document, and that God spoke to its original audience in terms they could understand, which includes ancient science, and within their own cultural river3.

For example, some Christians in the past used to argue that the earth is the center of the universe because certain biblical passages seemed to suggest it. Others proposed the idea of a vapor canopy surrounding the earth before God “opened” the floodgates of heaven during Noah’s flood. We now know that both of these claims are scientifically incorrect.

The problem with this is that as modern science advances, our interpretations of the Bible will have to be constantly “updated”. But most importantly, it fails to faithfully understand what the authors of the Bible were trying to communicate with their ancient audience, not to us in the 21st century.

Model 3: Siloes

Popularized by the American paleontologist and evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould, the non-overlapping magisteria (NOMA) model argues that science and religion occupy different domains of inquiry. Science is concerned with facts about the natural world, while religion speaks to questions of meaning, value, and ethics. These magisteria do not overlap with each other.

There is some truth in this model. Science and faith do not ask the same kinds of questions. However, those who adopt this view often try to minimize contact between the two in order to avoid tension and conflict. I suspect religious scientists might prefer this model because it is comfortable.

And yet, we use the same mind to worship God on Sunday that we use to do science for the rest of the week. If we are called to love God with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength (Mark 12:30), then we should not put science and faith in different boxes in our brains as though they never touch. We live in a reality that includes both the material and the spiritual, not two different worlds that do not interfere. Without genuine dialogue between science and faith, I don’t think we can live fully as Christians.

Model 4: Complementarity

In the complementarity model, science and faith are not seen as inherently in conflict, because they address the same reality but from different perspectives. They operate at different levels of discourse, but they are not unrelated. We live in both material and spiritual realities, and we are both biological and spiritual beings. Each offers explanations that the other cannot provide.

For example, science may help us understand how the galaxies, stars, earth, and life developed, while Scripture tells us who created them and why. When science and faith work as complements, they provide greater explanatory power to address reality.

The challenge of this model is that it is easy to retreat back into the silos model, where contact between science and faith is minimized. Or, when apparent conflicts arise, some may fall back into the fusion model and try to correct scientific conclusions with the Bible. We need to be cautious here.

A better approach is to critically reexamine scientific claims on their own terms while also faithfully reexamining our hermeneutics and interpretations of Scripture.

After all, both our scientific conclusions and our biblical interpretations are fallible.

The Complexity of Science and Faith

The approaches I most often see in evangelical churches today are the conflict and fusion models, and I think they are a major reason the perceived war between science and faith remains so heated. Many Christians have been taught, either directly or indirectly, to approach the subject this way. But it does not have to be so.

A good first step toward lowering the temperature is simply recognizing the different ways people approach the relationship between science and faith.

None of these models is perfect, but I find the complementarity model to be the most fruitful when I wrestle with these questions. It does not remove all the tensions, nor does it ignore the hard questions. Rather, it offers a more holistic way of thinking about both science and faith.

Science is difficult, and religion is complex. We should not come to this topic expecting easy answers to all our questions.

American journalist H. L. Mencken put it well:

“For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.”

If our goal is to seek truth, then we must approach this subject with humility.

Perhaps the first thing we need to learn about science and faith is the complexity of the relationship itself.

About the author:

Hi! I am Chi-Jing Leow, an evolutionary geneticist. I am also a follower of Jesus, and I care deeply about exploring the topics at the intersection of science and faith.

Share

Leave a comment

References:

The intricacy of DNA molecules and the immense diversity of life are among the reasons I study biology. The universal laws of physics and mathematics compelled Newton and many early Christian scientists to pursue truths in the natural world.

God’s creation is amazing. And as Christians we give praise for that.

Yet I often hear Christians praise God specifically for natural processes that are not yet explainable. Some go even further, saying that none of these things could happen without God’s miraculous intervention.

“Nature itself is insufficient,” they say.

“There must be divine intervention behind these natural phenomena,” they conclude.

This is called God of the gaps.

“We don’t know how it works, therefore God did it.”

To be clear, I am not talking about genuine supernatural miracles, such as those Jesus performed or His resurrection. Rather, I am talking about gaps in our current scientific knowledge.

For example, current scientific consensus does not yet offer a complete framework for how the first life appeared on earth, a process called abiogenesis. To be clear, this is entirely different from evolution. Evolution takes place only after self-replicating life already exists.

Many Christians seem to find these gaps in knowledge comforting and reassuring to their faith in God. The “unsolvable problems” in abiogenesis and evolution are taken as “proof” of God’s existence.

I am not saying that God could not have divinely intervened in these areas. He could have. But regardless, God is still involved in and has orchestrated all of these events. He is still the ultimate Creator of all things.

The danger of the God of the gaps view

But for those who hold this God of the gaps view, what happens when we discover the mechanisms behind these supposedly “unsolvable mysteries”? Where does that leave their view of God?

Generally, there are two possible outcomes.

The first is that some Christians deny the scientific discovery, claiming that atheists are simply trying to “explain phenomena without invoking the divine.” They become suspicious of science, and their distrust of scientists deepens, further fueling the perceived conflict between science and faith.

The second is that Christians come to recognize the compelling evidence for these scientific explanations, and their faith is shaken. Their view of God becomes smaller and weaker because it was tied to gaps in scientific knowledge. This is similar to what happens when faith is built on false scientific claims.

Both outcomes are harmful to faith and to our witness as Christians. So how should we approach this? Dietrich Bonhoeffer had something to say:

“It has again brought home to me quite clearly how wrong it is to use God as a stop-gap for the incompleteness of our knowledge. If in fact the frontiers of knowledge are being pushed further and further back (and that is bound to be the case), then God is being pushed back with them, and is therefore continually in retreat. We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don’t know; God wants us to realize his presence, not in unsolved problems but in those that are solved. That is true of the relationship between God and scientific knowledge, but it is also true of the wider human problems of death, suffering, and guilt.”1

God works in the seen and unseen

From the discovery of planetary motion to the detection of gravitational waves, science has always been advancing. If we place our confidence in supposedly “unprovable” gaps in scientific knowledge, our view of God will only become smaller with each scientific discovery.

If God is the source of all truth, then Christians should not be afraid of new scientific discoveries as though they might somehow undermine Him.

Every scientific discovery is worship waiting to happen.

“We are to find God in what we know, not in what we do not know; not in unsolved problems but in those that are solved.” Bonhoeffer said it well.

We tend to praise God when a miracle happens or when He answers our prayers. But could we not also praise Him in the mundane and in the unanswered prayers?

Similarly, God is not more glorious or more praiseworthy in incomprehensible mysteries than in the comprehensible truths we experience every day. The common grace.

The God Christians believe in is not a god of the gaps, but the God of everything—present in today’s mysteries and in tomorrow’s discoveries.

About the author:

Hi! I am Chi-Jing Leow, an evolutionary geneticist. I am also a follower of Jesus, and I care deeply about exploring the topics at the intersection of science and faith.

Leave a comment

Share

References:

If you visit the Sistine Chapel in Vatican City, you will be greeted by this famous fresco by Michelangelo. The near-touching index fingers of God and Adam symbolize the transmission of the divine spark—image of God (if you’d like)—of life and intellect to humanity.

Much of Christian theology hinges on the idea that humans are made in the image of God. In the Western world, specifically in the U.S., the belief that humans possess inherent, God-given rights is even reflected in the Declaration of Independence.

But what does it mean to be made in the image of God? If you ask Christians to define it, they might say:

“We possess God’s communicable attributes”

“God is a moral agent, so humans are moral agents”

“Can’t define a mystery”

“Humans are like God in our capacity to create and our awareness to reflect on our selves”

“human beings, as personal agents, possess unique capacities—such as self-consciousness, rationality, and moral agency—that enable them to know and relate to God”

“Conscious, sentient entities with similar characteristics to our creator including a free will”

“Relational just like the relational triune God”

“Perfect.”

I am not saying these answers are necessarily wrong. But before asking what later theology has said about the image of God, we should also ask what that phrase would have meant to the ancient Israelites who first received Genesis.

The command to rule and have dominion

In Genesis 1, humans were made in the image of God and immediately given dominion and rulership over the earth.

Then God said, “Let us make humans in our image, according to our likeness, and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over the cattle and over all the wild animals of the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.” Genesis 1:26 NSRVUE

This connection matters because instead of defining imago Dei as a set of capacities, it presents humans as God’s authorized agents commissioned to reflect his rule in creation.

That does not mean human capacities are irrelevant. Rationality, creativity, moral awareness, spirituality, and relationality may all serve that calling. But they are not the core meaning of imago Dei in Genesis.

To understand that more fully, we need to look at how images functioned in the ancient world.

God’s representatives and agents

One of the most illuminating ways to understand the image of God is to consider how images functioned in the ancient world. Kings would often set up statues or monuments of themselves throughout their lands, especially in places where they could not be physically present. These images reminded people who ruled the territory.

If God placed us on earth and called us his image bearers, then to bear God’s image is to represent him within the world he made. As J. Richard Middleton puts it, humanity is called to a “royal office” as God’s representatives and agents in creation.1

In this reading, imago Dei is not about what humans are, but what humans are for. We are placed in God’s world to reflect his character and exercise delegated authority under his rule.

We are the idols of Yahweh

Ancient people believed that the idols did not merely represent their deities, but somehow their presence is mysteriously manifested among them. In ancient Babylon they would do rituals called the “Washing of the Mouth” to make the idols come “alive” essentially. My friend Nathanael has written a great article on this.

However, the Israelites were prohibited to make or worship any idols. In Exodus 20:3, God said to Israel:

³ “You shall have no other gods before me. ⁴ You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below.” NIV

There are two reasons why Israelites were commanded to not make any idols of any form. First, God is distinct from his creation. God cannot be contained in nor represented by any statues humans make. That’s also why in Israel’s temple, there is no physical image of Yahweh.

The second, and maybe the main reason that Israelites should not make idols of God, is that he already made an image of himself. That is us–the living image of God2. According to Genesis:

Humans are not merely made “in” the image of God.

We are the three-dimensional living idols of Yahweh.

This does not mean God is contained in us or can be reduced to material form. Rather, it means humanity functions as God’s appointed living images in creation.

Humanity in sacred space

Scholars have noticed the connection between creation accounts and temple building. It’s been proposed that the seventh day of creation is actually the climax of the account, where God’s rest pertains to stability of his rule rather than relaxation3.

Some scholars argue that ancient readers would have recognized and understood the temple building idea in the seven-day creation account4. In Genesis, humans as image bearers were placed in the sacred space on day sixth before the completion and climax of the seventh day.

Not only does this help us understand what imago Dei likely meant for ancient Israelites, it also helps us to understand the creation account more accurately.

What image of God doesn’t mean

With this view described above, the essence of imago Dei is not about intelligence, rationality, moral compass, or even spiritual capacity. These abilities can be seen as tools that enable humans to relate to God and creation and to exercise rulership on the earth.

Being made in the image of God has nothing to do with our biology, either. Humans do not have divine DNA in our genomes and genetics has revealed that we are very similar to other living creatures.

Some would argue that the special de novo creation of Adam and Eve made them image bearers. However, as I presented in the previous post, regardless of your view on Adam and Eve (historical or merely archetypal), the humans made in the image of God in Genesis 1:26 were not restricted to Adam and Eve. Humans were considered image bearers before the story of Adam and Eve. Therefore, humans can still be made in the image of God while sharing common ancestry with other animals.

Why this strengthens human dignity

In this view, human dignity is not diminished but strengthened. If the image of God is rooted primarily in God’s calling rather than in a particular set of abilities, then it belongs to all humans equally. Infants bear God’s image even before their capacities are developed. People with cognitive or physical disabilities bear God’s image no less than anyone else. Even the non-Christians still possess the dignity of being his image-bearers.

Concluding thoughts:

For centuries, theologians and philosophers have debated what it means to be made in the image of God. A deep dive into this discussion would require a lot of time which I currently don’t have. But I have included scholarly resources in this area at the end of this article if you are interested in reading more.

Whether or not you agree with what I have presented here, I hope it helps you respond more thoughtfully the next time someone brings up this topic.

Maybe the image of God is not first about the traits we possess, but about the God who made us, the role he gave us, and the dignity that comes from bearing His image in the world.

About the author:

Hi! I am Chi-Jing Leow, a PhD student studying evolutionary developmental genetics. I am also a follower of Jesus, and I care deeply about exploring the topics at the intersection of science and faith.

Share

Leave a comment

Recommended books and resources:

McDowell, Catherine L. The Image of God in the Garden of Eden: The Creation of Humankind in Genesis 2:5—3:24 in Light of Mīs Pî Pīt Pî and Wpt-r Rituals of Mesopotamia and Ancient Egypt. Siphrut 15. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2015.

Peterson, Ryan S. The Imago Dei as Human Identity: A Theological Interpretation. PhD diss.: Wheaton College, 2010.

Kilner, John F. Dignity and Destiny: Humanity in the Image of God. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2015.

Middleton, J. Richard. The Liberating Image: The Imago Dei in Genesis 1. Grand Rapids: Brazos, 2005.

Imes, Carmen Joy. Being God’s Image: Why Creation Still Matters. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2023.

https://biologos.org/common-questions/how-could-humans-have-evolved-and-still-be-in-the-image-of-god

References:

First, I want to make something very clear: this is not a post critiquing Young Earth Creationism (YEC) or the people who hold that view. I have many dear friends and family members who are YECs.

Rather, this is a critical examination of Ken Ham’s recent YouTube video, in which he explicitly said that he is willing to cause division in the church over the age-of-the-earth issue.

In the video, Ham responded to Dr. John Lennox’s statement that the Bible does not say anything about the age of the universe or the earth, and that we should not fight over it.

Ham responded: “Absolutely we should be decisive!“

He went on presenting his “biblical” arguments. First, Ham laid the foundation by saying: “The Bible clearly teaches about the age of the earth.” Then he cited Jesus as an example of bringing division (Luke 12:51), allowing himself to be seen as the truth- and light-bearer in contrast to the darkness of the world (John 3:19; John 1:5). He then appealed to 1 Corinthians 11:18 to argue that division reveals truth, and to Romans 16:17 to warn against those who teach contrary to what believers have learned.

Ham concluded by saying that we need to be united on God’s Word, beginning in Genesis. He said that their stand on YEC does create division because many people “believe” millions of years and try to “add” evolution to the Bible.

Throughout the video, there are clips of Christians who are not YECs, basically “warning” viewers that these are compromised Christians. Ham seems to do this regularly, and I find that pretty pathetic.

Should we divide the church over this issue?

First, the Bible does not tell us about the age of the earth, nor should we extract scientific information from it. And it can be a dangerous thing to make Scripture say what it never meant to say. The Bible is written for us, but not to us.

Second, this is not an issue concerning the gospel or core Christian theology. Age of the earth is a tertiary issue like different views of the millennium. These issues do not warrant distinct worshiping communities, let alone divide the church over it.

Third, throughout history, there have been many prominent Christians who do not hold a young earth position. For example: C.S. Lewis, Charles Spurgeon, B.B. Warfield, Tim Keller, John Lennox, N.T. Wright, William Lane Craig, John Walton, Hugh Ross, Gavin Ortlund, Francis Collins. The list goes on.

Faithful Christians hold different views on this.

Can you believe the earth is 6,000 years old? Yes you can. But you don’t have to.

No, we don’t need to be divided over this.

As always, Ham never acknowledged two very important things:

1. YEC is only one of many interpretations of Genesis.

2. Ham doesn’t acknowledge that his interpretation of the Bible could be wrong. It must be right.

Essentially, Ham elevated his interpretation to the level of the authority of Scripture. Therefore, those who have different views on creation must be wrong and they need to be corrected.

The grave danger of Ham’s call to divide

Ham and Answers in Genesis have worldwide influence. He knows how to appeal to his audience—primarily conservative evangelicals and those who are not trained as scientists.

By making such an explicit statement—that he is willing to cause division among Christians—he is now encouraging tens of thousands of his followers to do the same in their own churches and circles.

I really did not want to write this post. I have tried to avoid talking about the age-of-the-earth issue because it is not really my area of interest, and I do not closely follow Answers in Genesis news or Ham’s claims.

But I am deeply grieved and disturbed by Ham’s latest boldness in his “defense” of Scripture—calling for division in the church over this issue.

It is one thing to personally hold a YEC view of creation. It is a very different thing to divide the church over it.

Shoutout to my friend Dr. Joel Duff, a professor of biology and an evangelical Christian, who wrote a point-by-point response to Ham’s arguments. Check out his post for a full and detailed analysis.

About the author:

Hi! I am Chi-Jing Leow, a PhD student studying evolutionary developmental genetics. I am also a follower of Jesus, and I care deeply about exploring the topics at the intersection of science and faith.

Share

Leave a comment

It’s been almost four months since I started writing on this platform. If you have been following along, THANK YOU! I really appreciate each and every one of you. Honestly, I really don’t know how many people actually read what I write. But that doesn’t really matter.

If you’ve read one or two posts, you can probably get a sense of what I write about here: showing why evolution and Christianity can both be true. If you’re new, here’s a good start.

Before I keep going, I thought it would be good to clarify my intent.

Conversations over debates

I am not trying to “convert” my fellow brothers and sisters in Christ to accept evolution, or atheists to believe in God, though I will present reasons and evidence for why I think both can be true at the same time.

What I really want is dialogue. I want to create a space where people can ask genuinely hard questions.

Too often, questions about faith are seen as a danger to the church, and those who ask them are judged or shamed by other Christians.

If Christianity is true, why are we afraid to ask hard questions with a genuine desire to pursue truth? We may not have all the answers, but that does not mean we cannot ask the questions.

Sensitive and complex topics

I’ve been criticized and attacked by some Christians on this platform because of my views. They disagree with me, and they do not like what I am doing here.

I understand that. But I at least want to show them that there are many faithful Christians today, and throughout history, who have wrestled with these same questions.

The relationship between science and faith is not as black and white as some people think. I wish it were. But it requires careful and faithful hermeneutics and exegesis, as well as sound scientific interpretation.

My strengths and limitations

I am a biologist, and I study evolution and genetics. I am confident when it comes to the science.

But I am not a theologian, and I try not to make claims or interpretations without support from credible biblical scholars. I was once told, “You have to be respectful and careful when you deal with hermeneutics, because it is someone’s holy ground.”

I remind myself often that I could be wrong, too.

If what I write encourages you, I am glad. If it discourages you, feel free to walk away or unsubscribe. No hard feelings.

Take what I say with a grain of salt. You do not have to accept everything I write here, and that is probably a good thing. I do not want to cause anyone to stumble in their faith, either.

My hope is not only to challenge people but also to build them up.

Why I write

I started writing because I needed an outlet for my endless thoughts and questions. This is where I am in my faith journey, and I want to share that journey with others.

But I also write to teach people how to examine scientific claims critically—that is, by drawing conclusions based on evidence—and to encourage reading Scripture faithfully by paying attention to context and the authors’ intent.

I want to show that genuine, faithful Christians can hold different views on certain passages of the Bible.

I write for scientifically minded Christians who struggle to understand how science and faith fit together.

I write for seeking atheists who wonder whether accepting Jesus would require abandoning science and rationality.

I write for Christians who are struggling with doubts about God and Christianity.

If you are one of them, you are not alone. I understand that struggle.

I do not have all the answers.

But I am on this journey with you.

Sincerely,

Chi-Jing

About the author:

Hi! I am Chi-Jing Leow, a PhD student studying evolutionary developmental genetics. I am also a follower of Jesus, and I care deeply about exploring the topics at the intersection of science and faith.

Share

Leave a comment

God created living things as populations in Genesis 1

Regardless of how you interpret the creation “days” in Genesis 1—literal 24-hour days, long periods of time, or symbolic days—I think we can agree that God created all living things as populations, not as isolated individual pairs.

Similarly, in Genesis 1:26, God created “adam” (humanity in general), just as he made wild animals, sea creatures, and birds. But we have no reason to assume that the humans created on day six in Genesis 1 are specifically Adam and Eve from Genesis 2.1

Old Testament scholar Dr. Michael Heiser noted:

“The human beings of Genesis 1 are not in a garden in Eden, there is no garden of Eden in Genesis 1; the command to “subdue the earth” would speak of the whole earth, wherever humans are, not Eden, which is nowhere in view.”2

A literary divider suggests Genesis 2 follows Genesis 1

It’s often taught that the creation of Adam and Eve in Genesis 2 is simply a “zoomed-in” or more detailed retelling of Genesis 1. But the literary divider ‘These are the generations of…’ (the toledoth formula) appears 11 times in Genesis and typically introduces what follows.

For example, in Genesis 25:19, “these are the generations of Isaac…” introduces the account of Isaac’s descendants and what happens after him.

In the same way, the “second” creation account in Genesis 2 should be read as a sequel to the creation week in Genesis 1, rather than a retelling of the same events.

Dust means mortality, not material composition

In my previous post I discussed the evidence that humans were created mortal even before Adam sinned. This is supported by the presence of the tree of life (immortal beings wouldn’t need it), and by God denying access to it to prevent Adam from living forever.

The word dust likely means mortality, not the material substance. This is indicated in Genesis 3:19, Psalm 103, and Ecclesiastes 3:20.

The word “formed” is not strictly material origin

⁷ then the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being. —Genesis 2:7 (NRSVUE)

Many Christians read this passage as describing a special act of creation—that God formed Adam literally from dust and created him de novo (instantaneously), rather than through ordinary biological processes.

However, the Hebrew verb translated ‘formed’ (yatsar, יָצַר) does not necessarily imply a material act. For example in Zechariah 12:1, “Thus says the Lord, who stretched out the heavens and founded the earth and formed (יָצַר) the human spirit within.” Human spirit does not belong to the material category. Many other occurrences show that this verb is used in a wide range of non-material ways.3

• Our days are ordained (יָצַר) by God (Psalm 139:16)

• God planned (יָצַר) the events taking place now long ago (2 Kings 19:25; Isaiah 37:26; Jeremiah 18:11)

• God formed (יָצַר) summer and winter (Psalm 74:17)

• God prepares (יָצַר) a swarm of locusts (Amos 7:1)

• When God forms (יָצַר) the heart (refers to inclinations and thoughts) (Psalm 33:15)

• God forms (יָצַר) light and creates darkness (Isaiah 45:7)

How would it change your view on the creation of Adam if we read:

“God planned / prepared / ordained the human from dust of the earth.” ?

Second, in the original Hebrew text, there is no preposition preceding the word dust. Many English translations added “from” or “of/out of” as prepositions (go check what your favorite Bible says).

Therefore, a translation like “The Lord God formed the human—dust of the earth.” would be much more accurate, and the early Greek translations reflect this as well.4 This is consistent with the idea that dust signals our identity—that we are mortal beings.

Eve was not necessarily made from Adam’s rib

The Hebrew word translated as "rib" in Genesis 2:21-22 is tsela (צלע), which more accurately means “side” or “half”. It refers to a large structural part of something—like half of the building—rather than a single bone.

It’s not far-fetched to imagine God split Adam in half to make Eve. This is why Adam declares “bone of my bones, flesh of my flesh” recognizing Eve as his equal—made of the same substance.

Could God literally split Adam in half to create Eve? Sure… But is the narrative’s main point the mechanism of how woman was made?

Perhaps it’s telling us what women are created for—that husband and wife are meant to function as one unit.

Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and clings to his wife, and they become one flesh. —Genesis 2:24 (NRSVUE)

Additionally, falling into a “deep sleep” or “trance” in the Ancient Near Eastern contexts is often associated with a visionary experience from God.

So it’s not hard to imagine God revealing Eve’s role through a vision rather than describing a surgical procedure.

Cain’s wife and the city builders

Where did Cain get his wife? And who were the people Cain feared would kill him? These have been intriguing questions since the beginning of church history.

Since incest is prohibited in Leviticus 18, it’s reasonable to assume the original audience of Genesis did not imagine Adam’s children marrying each other, so we shouldn’t treat that as the default explanation.

And the fact that one person doesn’t build a city alone led many to believe that there were people outside the garden. This fits with Genesis 1:26, which describes God creating humanity as a whole.

Adam and Eve are archetypes

If Adam and Eve were not the first humans, then what is their significance?

Many scholars, including John Walton, suggest that Adam and Eve are to be understood as archetypes.

“What was important about them was not how they might be different from the rest of us (for example, in their activities or material origins) but in how they were the same as the rest of us.”5

Adam means human and Eve means life.

Their names suggest they are not merely two individuals, but representatives of humanity as a whole.

It’s worth noting that the Hebrew language did not exist in the time Genesis depicts, so “Adam” and “Eve” function as narrative labels rather than their real names.

New Testament scholar N. T. Wright explains:

“…just as God chose Israel from the rest of humankind for a special, strange, demanding vocation, so perhaps what Genesis is telling us is that God chose one pair from the rest of early hominids for a special, strange, demanding vocation. This pair (call them Adam and Eve if you like) were to be the representatives of the whole human race, the ones in whom God’s purpose to make the whole world a place of delight and joy and order, eventually colonizing the whole creation, was to be taken forward. God the creator put into their hands the fragile task of being his image bearers.”

In this view, Adam and Eve were not the first humans on earth, but the first humans chosen for a special vocation. By placing them in Eden and giving them commands to rule and subdue the earth, God established a covenant relationship with them.

There is much more to unpack on this topic—what Adam and Eve are archetypes of, and how their story relates to our understanding of original sin. But I hope this challenges you to think beyond what many evangelicals were taught in church about Adam and Eve.

What does this say about human origins?

If Genesis 1:26 describes God creating humanity as populations, if the text hints at people outside the garden, if Adam and Eve may not have been created de novo—where does that leave us?

Where did humanity come from—specifically our biological origins? Perhaps Genesis 1 and 2 are not trying to answer those questions.

If you found this helpful, please drop a like or share it—it really helps me. :)

About the author:

Hi! I am Chi-Jing Leow, a PhD student studying evolutionary developmental genetics. I am also a follower of Jesus, and I care deeply about exploring the topics at the intersection of science and faith.

Leave a comment

Share

References

Rhett McLaughlin is a prominent American YouTuber, comedian, and musician. He is best known as one half of the comedy duo Rhett & Link, creators and hosts of the daily show Good Mythical Morning.

In an interview with Rhett by famous philosopher Alex O’Connor, Rhett shared about his deconversion journey. He said:

“I didn’t buy into the [old earth] creationism thing, but I was so sure that evolution didn’t happen. When you are raised in the Christian faith, the idea of evolution you’ve had has come through the filter of a Christian “scientist” telling you why it’s not legitimate. Somebody comes into your church and they are like evolution expert and they make it so impossible that you walk out of that with a full affirmation of the idea that evolution definitely didn’t happen. And it will be debunked by the scientists themselves within our lifetime. Like that is the kind of stuff we told ourselves.”

Rhett is right. How often do Christian apologists confidently make claims about the age of the earth or evolution, and we fully trust their scientific claims and interpretations of Genesis simply because they are Christians?

Evolution was not the only reason why Rhett left Christianity. But when he was asked why it mattered so much—especially since many Christians accept evolution—he said:

“Because it was at that point I realized how wrong I could be about something so fundamental… And then, not only was I wrong, but all of these Christian apologists who were so sure about their critiques of evolution, they have missed the boat so significantly on this. Then suddenly I was like, can I… can I still trust anything else they’ve got to say about this [Christianity]?”

It’s a trust issue

All human relationships are built on trust. When you meet someone new, your mind instinctively asks whether that person is trustworthy. And within the Christian body, trust can significantly impact someone’s faith. For Rhett, the issue wasn’t reconciling evolution with Christianity—it was losing trust in Christians.

In my own story, when I discovered that Answers in Genesis was so fundamentally wrong about their scientific claims, my faith was negatively impacted. I lost all my trust in these people that do creation science ministries and apologetics.

How can I trust anything they say—including the Bible—when they are so wrong about the science?

Just to be clear, I am not endorsing Rhett here, but I think his story could serve as a reminder. Pastor Gavin Ortlund has made a great response video on this (link at below), which I found very helpful.

Don’t build your faith on false scientific claims

The pastor at my church once told me about a Chinese woman who visited and was surprised to learn that he didn’t believe in a young earth. She thought that meant he wasn’t a genuine Christian—because the people who shared the gospel with her had insisted on a strict Young Earth position.

The lesson for us here is: build someone’s faith on the gospel, not on one particular interpretation of the creation story.

My advise is:

“You don’t have to accept evolution—but please don’t base your faith on ‘young earth’ or ‘evolution isn’t true’ arguments and teach people that way.”

Give people options. Show them that faithful Christians hold different views about creation—especially when you’re sharing the gospel with others or teaching children.

Because you never know. One day your kid might grow up to be a scientist too—and we don’t want to undermine their faith by making it hinge on a scientific claim that doesn’t hold up.

About the author:

Hi! I am Chi-Jing Leow, a PhD student studying evolutionary developmental genetics. I am also a follower of Jesus, and I care deeply about exploring the topics at the intersection of science and faith.

Share

Leave a comment

Response video by Pastor Gavin Ortlund on this:

But death before the Fall is not a question unique to those who accept evolution. It’s a theological question for anyone who accepts an ancient Earth and universe. Here, I explore why animal death before the Fall is compatible with Scripture.

The fossil evidence is clear

More than 99% of all species that have ever lived on Earth have gone extinct. The fossil record shows that countless creatures have roamed the Earth and died for millions of years before humans even appeared. The death of animals and plants long before human history is a fact.

So how do we deal with this? Does the Bible teach that there was no death in any form before the Fall? Is it true that animal death was a result of man’s sin?

Death spread to all people, not all living things.

Many refer to Romans 5:12, claiming that physical death—including animal death—resulted entirely from humanity’s Fall.

Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned— Romans 5:12

The text says death spread to all mankind—not every living thing. It’s concerning humanity as a whole, not animals. And it’s emphasizing spiritual death, not just physical.

In Genesis 3:14-19, when God pronounced judgement on the serpent, Eve, and Adam, animal death is not mentioned. As far as I know, animals are not capable of sinning; only humans are. It makes sense that the consequences of sin are bound to humanity, not other creatures.

Darwin did not introduce the idea of death before the Fall

There is a misconception that before Darwin’s theory of evolution, Christians believed there was no death before the fall. But that isn’t true. Some early theologians believed animals lived and died before Adam.

For example, Basil the Great (c. 370 AD), in his Homilies on the Six Days of Creation, indicates that animal mortality was part of the natural order before Adam's sin.

“So nature, being put in motion by the one command, passes equally through birth and death in a creature, while it keeps up the succession of kinds through resemblance, to the end.”

Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274) also believed that God’s original creation included animals that preyed on each other, writing that

“the nature of animals was not changed by man’s sin.”1

In Charles Spurgeon’s sermon on The Power of The Holy Ghost, he stated:

“We know not how remote the period of the creation of this globe may be—certainly many millions of years before the time of Adam. Our planet has passed through various stages of existence, and different kinds of creatures have lived on its surface, all of which have been fashioned by God.”2

Of course, there are other theologians held the view that any death—even rose thorns—resulted from Adam’s sin. But remember: they did not have the fossil evidence or paleontology we have today, which only became widely recognized in the late eighteenth century.

The early church fathers are heroes of the faith to many of us, but that doesn’t mean they were infallible. They could be wrong too.

Plants, cells, and bacteria die regardless

Even within the Young Earth Creationist view—where animal death was not part of the original plan—plants still die. Cell death is unavoidable in this view, too. When vegetation and fruit are consumed, cells must be broken down and digested to be used as resources. Without death, bacteria and other fast-reproducing creatures would have overrun the Earth in a matter of days.

Is this what God had planned—that creatures would fill the earth within a week and be done? Or was the cycle of life a good thing designed by God?

A healthy ecosystem involves death

Predator-prey relationships are part of a functionally good ecosystem. Predators keep the numbers of prey in check and herbivores keep the plants and vegetation under control.

For example, wolves were eradicated from Yellowstone in the 1920s. After that, the ecosystem experienced a dramatic, negative shift known as the trophic cascade. Elk populations (prey of the wolves) soared and overgrazed the willow and aspen trees, causing songbirds to decline. Without the competition from the wolves, coyotes thrived and beaver populations disappeared. This led to an unbalanced ecosystem.

Was meat eating part of God’s good creation?

Some point to Genesis 1:30 and say that God had originally created all animals to be herbivores, and that only after Noah’s flood that meat-eating became a thing. But we need to look at Scripture as a whole.

In Psalm 104, the psalmist praises God as the Creator and Provider.

²¹ The young lions roar for their prey,
seeking their food from God.
²² When the sun rises, they withdraw
and lie down in their dens.

In the book of Job, when God finally answered him out of the whirlwind:

³⁹ “Can you hunt the prey for the lion
or satisfy the appetite of the young lions,
⁴⁰ when they crouch in their dens
or lie in wait in their covert?
⁴¹ Who provides for the raven its prey,
when its young ones cry to God
and wander about for lack of food?

From these two passages, it does seem that predation was part of God’s good creation, that He cares for them as well.

If one insists that Genesis 1:30 teaches all animals were herbivores before Adam sinned, that passage doesn’t explicitly include creatures in the sea. Doesn’t that imply predation would still be permissible for sea creatures?

Angelic rebellion that caused animal deaths?

I love C. S. Lewis. He wrote extensively on religion and also about science. In The Problem of Pain, Lewis discussed that topic of animal death prior to Adam:

“The origin of animal suffering could be traced, by earlier generations, to the Fall of man—the whole world was infected by the uncreated rebellion of Adam. This is now impossible, for we have good reason to believe that animals existed long before men. Carnivorousness, with all that it entails, is older than humanity.3”

He acknowledged the fact that animals lived and died millions of years before Adam, so he suggested the possibility that animal death and suffering were caused by Angelic rebellion and fall, which could have happened before human history:

“It seems to me, therefore, a reasonable supposition, that some mighty created power had already been at work for ill on the material universe, or the solar system, or, at least, the planet Earth, before ever man came on the scene…If there is such a power, as I myself believe, it may well have corrupted the animal creation before man appeared.”

I have two reasons to object to Lewis’s view. As I mentioned before, animal death is essential in a functioning ecosystem. Natural selection from predators is a major driving force in evolution. Without leopards, impala, gazelle, wildebeest, and zebra would not have evolved such speed, agility, or camouflage. At the end of creation, God called everything good—and that must have included predation as well.

Secondly, the Old Testament does not portray a natural world corrupted by evil in the same way humanity was. Both in Job and Psalms, predation was part of God’s good creation. Some might point to Romans 8:19–22, arguing that creation as a whole was subjected to futility and enslaved to decay. But it was God who subjected creation, not Satan4. Also, futility and decay cannot simply be assumed to mean animal death without further justification.

Retroactive consequences of sin?

Some proposed that God rewrote the earth’s history due to Adam’s sin, resulting in the death of animals and plants long before humans’ existence. But how is this fair? Why should creatures before humanity suffer for what humans would later do? This view is also a speculation rather than directly derived from Scripture.

Conclusions:

The Bible does not explicitly say that animal death came through the Fall of humanity, and the evidence in nature clearly indicates that creatures died long before humans appeared. Animal suffering may raise other theological questions, but that is a discussion for another time.

If you’re having a hard time accepting this, that’s okay. I also struggled to reconcile any form of death before the Fall because of the YEC framework. But eventually, I was convinced by both the evidence in nature and Scripture itself.

I think we should read the Bible as a whole and take the evidence in creation into account. Sometimes it is right to attribute what we genuinely do not know to the mystery of God—but not when nature, the “second book,” is reminding us that we may have been interpreting certain passages wrongly.

About the author:

Hi! I am Chi-Jing Leow, a PhD student studying evolutionary developmental genetics. I am also a follower of Jesus, and I care deeply about exploring the topics at the intersection of science and faith.

Share

Leave a comment

References:

So it’s no surprise that people often appeal to the early church fathers—the OGs—saying things like:

“This is the most conservative view held by the early theologians.”

“This is the most biblical view because St. Augustine believed that.”

We’re all familiar with these statements. I will admit, I was happy to learn that C.S. Lewis did not see evolution as a contradiction to Christian faith. I was also glad that Billy Graham didn’t think it ultimately mattered whether humanity was created de novo or through an evolutionary process.

We want the faith giants to be on our side—to support our views and positions.

I’m not saying it’s wrong to appeal to them. Modern Christians have benefited enormously from their contributions to Christian theology—and from the sacrifices they made. I think all of us should learn the history of our faith and how different theologies developed over time.

But the thing is, they could be wrong too. They are fallible just like us.

I don’t think that when we get to the gates of heaven, God is going to hand us a theological exam and see whether we pass. Now, I’m not saying theological correctness isn’t important—I believe it is. But in the end, every theology is incomplete to a certain degree, because none can fully capture the infinite God.

Still, I think we should be faithful to the information given to us.

The people in the Old Testament did not have the New Testament. The early church fathers did not have our understanding of Ancient Near Eastern cultures, thanks to archaeology. Moses did not know the earth was a globe or that the sun is a giant burning ball of gas.

My point is that I think we are going to be held accountable for what we have in our time, and God is going to judge us accordingly.

We have the whole Bible, the evidence in nature, and two thousand years of Christian history and tradition. I don’t think it will be enough to say, “I believed this because that’s just what I was taught in church,” or “Well, Tim Keller believed that too,” if God asks why we did what we did.

We need to be faithful to what is available to us. That means thinking critically—examining our actions and beliefs—and not blindly following the crowd, even when the crowd is Christian.

Because one day we will stand individually before the Alpha and the Omega and give an account of what we have done—and what we have left undone.

I recently watched an animated movie called The Sea Beast, and this line has stuck with me ever since.

You can be a faith hero and still be wrong.

About the author:

Hi! I am Chi-Jing Leow, a PhD student studying evolutionary developmental genetics. I am also a follower of Jesus, and I care deeply about exploring the topics at the intersection of science and faith.

Share

Leave a comment

Post credit scene:

This is hot off the press—the idea came to me last night. It usually takes me a long time to write something out, but sometimes spontaneous thoughts like these are fun. If you’re reading this, thank you for following along.

If you like what I write, please let me know. If you disagree, let me know also. I’d love to hear your thoughts.

Here, I explore the evidence for why I think Adam and Eve were not created immortal.

1. Dust likely means mortality

In Psalm 103, King David said that we, not Adam, were made of dust. But all of us have biological parents; how can we be made from dust? From this, we can understand that dust means mortality.

¹⁴ for he knows how we are formed,
he remembers that we are dust.
¹⁵ The life of mortals is like grass,
they flourish like a flower of the field; - Psalm 103:14-15 (NIV)

In Genesis, when God judged Adam’s sin, He said:

you are dust, and to dust you shall return. - Genesis 3:19

One possible interpretation is: “you are mortal, and you shall stay mortal and die.”

2. The tree of life suggests Adam was not immortal by default

One important clue is the tree of life in the garden of Eden. The texts suggest that Adam and Eve could continue to live forever if they ate from the tree of life.

²² And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.” - Genesis 3:22-24 (NIV)

So God cast them out of Eden and blocked the way to the tree of life with cherubim and a flaming sword.

If Adam and Eve were created immortal, why would there be a need for the tree of life in the first place?

3. Adam and Eve did not die immediately

God told Adam that if he disobeyed, he would die.

¹⁷ but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die.” -Genesis 2:17 (NRSVUE)

No doubt, when Adam and Eve died spiritually when they rebelled against God; their relationship with God was broken.

But they did not die immediately and they went on to live and have children. Some suggest that God had mercy on them and spared their lives, but one could also argue that it meant spiritual death.

There are a few options I think are worth considering.

Option 1: Adam and Eve could have been immortal

Another way to look at this is that Adam and Eve were not immortal in the first place, but they had access to immortality from the tree of life, whether it was a real tree or a symbol. They lost access to it when they rebelled, and so did all humanity. This is also known as conditional immortality.

In this view, Adam could have lived forever, but now all humanity has lost access and is now doomed to die.

I find this view much more appealing, and it makes more sense based on the texts.

Option 2: Death may have been “gentler” without sin

Interestingly, John Calvin suggested that Adam’s sin brought painful death into the world.

“Truly the first man would have passed to a better life, had he remained upright; but there would have been no separation of the soul from the body, no corruption, no kind of destruction, and, in short, no violent change.1”

He did not say this because of evolution or fossil evidence; he was merely interpreting Scripture.

Was the world a utopia before the fall?

When God created the world, he called everything good, but not perfect. Old Testament professor John Walton proposed that the creation was functionally good in relation to one another.

²⁸ God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.” - Genesis 1:28 (NIV)

The words “subdue” and “rule over” are harsh words and may imply danger. One could view that outside the garden of Eden, there was chaos and danger. It was Adam and Eve’s job to bring order to the rest of the world.

Conclusions

The subject of death is sensitive. Most of us have lost loved ones—including myself—and any form of death can feel evil, like the enemy of God.

The Bible is clear that spiritual death—the separation between humans and God—came through sin. Physical death also separates us from our loved ones, but only temporarily.

I think one can still affirm that spiritual death (and human physical death) came through sin, even if Adam and Eve were not created inherently immortal.

Interestingly, in the book of Revelation, God’s ultimate redemption of creation is not simply about going back to Eden—because Eden was not the ultimate goal. It was the beginning.

The garden of Eden was not a “happily ever after” place. It was the start of God’s rule on Earth through his image-bearers—you and me. It was the opening chapter of humanity’s grand adventure: partnership with God and perfect fellowship with Him. But humans chose to rebel against Him.

About the author:

Hi! I am Chi-Jing Leow, a PhD student studying evolutionary developmental genetics. I am also a follower of Jesus, and I care deeply about exploring the topics at the intersection of science and faith.

Share

Leave a comment

Reference

The dumbest thing I’ve done in my whole life, I’m not kidding.

“You came to renew your passport, but you didn’t bring your passport?”

The staff members at the Consulate General of Malaysia stared at me in disbelief.

“Yea, I know… It’s my fault. I left home in a hurry.” The words stumbled out my mouth.

Standing there, I felt like the stupidest person in the whole world. I am sure the people behind me were probably laughing. How could you forget to bring the most important thing?

“Look, there’s nothing we can do to help you. You have to come back again next time with the original passport.” one of them said.

My flight leaves tomorrow morning, but maybe I could extend my stay here until next Monday. My wife could overnight my passport to me. Hmm, let’s see. Today is Friday, so the express mail probably wouldn’t get here until on Monday anyway, and there’s no guarantee I would have my passport before the next appointment. Which means this whole passport-renewal trip to NYC is a waste. I even took days off for this.

I was very upset at myself, wondering how I could even salvage this trip.

I walked out the building and stood beside the intersection of 2nd Ave and 43rd street. The stress and other things that had been building up for the last few months, especially in the last few weeks have finally caught up on me. Tears started dripping down my face.

There I was, in the midst of New York City. Alone. And absolutely upset with myself.

I’m usually not careless like this, at least I don’t think so. I would triple check the doors are locked before we go to bed. Sometimes I wonder if I have a little OCD. So how did I forget the passport?

Here is what happened. The night before I left, I wanted to make extra photocopies of my passport for the application, and I left my original passport in the printer at home, and I flew with my Real ID. Sometimes being extra cautious or over-prepared isn’t a good thing, and it backfired on me.

“Hey, are you okay? What happened?” A voice asked.

The question pulled me from my memory in Michigan back to reality on 43rd street.

“Oh, it’s nothing. I just couldn’t renew my passport.” I wiped away my tears.

“Why couldn’t you renew it?” He asked.

“I forgot my passport at home, it was my fault.” leave me alone, I thought. I didn’t want a stranger interrupting my self-pity.

“Ahh, things like that happen,” He said gently. “It’s okay. Do you have family here?”

Those few exchanges caught me off guard. I’ve been to NYC enough times to know that you don’t talk to strangers, and if someone tries to talk to you on the street, you ignore them and keep walking. But this guy is different.

“Come on man, let’s go get some coffee.” He said.

What?? I was very confused…but I followed him. I had nothing planned that morning anyway, except my passport renewal appointment.

Two minutes later, I was sitting in a coffee shop with this stranger, who insisted on buying my coffee.

“So what are you doing in Michigan?” He asked.

“Umm… I’m doing a PhD in biology.” I said, still trying to orient myself.

“Oh that’s great! My daughter loves chemistry and biology, but the teachers here aren’t great. They are not passionate about the subject they teach, probably because of the low pay.” he said.

His warmth was unreal. From friends, sure, but from a stranger? I’d never experienced anything like this, let alone in NYC.

He told me his life story: where he’s from, how long he’s been in the city. We talked about how traveling changes a person. The experience you gain is invaluable. He’s seen a lot more of the world than I have.

“You should travel more when you are young, even if it cost some money.” he said with enthusiasm.

I want to visit his country—his hometown—with beautiful green pastures in summer and crystal-clear lakes.

“Technology has isolated people so much these days. You know? the black box.” he said, pointing to his phone.

I agree. No amount of FaceTime or texting can replace the time you spend with someone face-to-face. No distractions. No buzz from the black box.

“New York City is very isolating, people just mind their own business. That’s why I was so surprised when you talked to me” I told him.

“People in NYC are actually quite nice,” he replied. “They would help you if you’re in trouble. Like that time when my wife was hit by a car on the street, people stopped and made sure she was okay. If you go to a small town in the US, you will feel very isolated.”

I was surprised. To me, NYC is a place where you enjoy the good food, entertainment, or museums, but not the people. New Yorkers aren’t known for being the nicest… but this guy proved me wrong.

We continue to chat for a least half an hour.

As we walked out the coffee shop, he shared a proverb from his culture, something like this: “If you have the good values in your heart, you will meet the same kind of people.”

I don’t think I would’ve done what he did: comforting a distressed stranger on the street. But what he said resonates with me. There is also a similar Chinese proverb “物以类聚, 人以群分”, like “Birds of a feather flock together” in English (I actually just learned this).

Perhaps there are other people like him out there in NYC. Maybe there really are kind New Yorkers.

When I got back home, I told my parents about the encounter. They were as surprised as I was, and said I might have met an angel.

I said probably not, because he has Instagram.

I personally have not experienced anything unexpected like this. You might see this as a coincidence—that I just luckily bumped into a nice guy. But it was like a real God moment to me. I felt comforted and seen by God through a stranger’s kindness.

It helped me understand that whether you’re in the middle of an existential crisis, or feeling alone and lost in the middle of a city, God sees you. He knows what you are going through, and you are not alone.

About the author:

Hi! I am Chi-Jing Leow, a PhD student studying evolutionary developmental genetics. I am also a follower of Jesus, and I care deeply about exploring the topics at the intersection of science and faith.

Leave a comment

Share

Post credit scene:

So… did I renew my passport?

Yes. My kind wife express-mailed my passport, and I extended my trip in NYC until Monday to do the appointment again. It actually worked.

Honestly, the extended trip turned out to be a blessing in disguise. I was able to spend extra time with my parents. We walked in Central Park together, and had amazing food with my sister. None of that would’ve happened if I hadn’t forgotten my passport.

Now, I don’t think God intentionally made me forget it. But I do think that through my mistake, He redeemed it—and made it meaningful and beautiful.

I plan to demonstrate the explanatory and predictive power of evolution by presenting different case studies. My goal is to show you why “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution” -Theodosius Dobzhansky

The magnificence and weirdness of whales

Whales are mammals, they give live births, produce milk, and have hair like us! But for the longest time, evolutionary biologists couldn’t figure out how cetaceans, which includes whales, dolphins, and orcas, related to other mammals.

According to evolution, all aquatic mammals had ancestors that once lived on land, so how did these 30-ton creatures evolve from land mammals? Let’s dive into the story of cetaceans, and how they became the poster child of evolution.

The mystery of whale origins

Biologists have long known that whales are mammals, but their origins puzzled them. Darwin once suggested whales evolved from bear-like animals, while others argued they were related to ungulates (hoofed mammals) or creodonts (extinct primitive carnivores) based on anatomy. Even by 1945, evolutionary biologists struggled to understand how cetaceans (a group that includes whales, dolphins, and orcas) are related to other mammals. George Gaylord Simpson famously put it this way:

Anti-evolutionists were quite happy about it

Critics of evolution said it’s impossible for whales to have evolved from land mammals. They claimed that the absence of transitional whale fossils was a major weakness of evolutionary theory, and the gap between land mammals and fully aquatic whales was too vast to bridge by gradual steps.

Creation Ministry International mocked evolutionary biologists by creating images like the one above, a mermaid-like creature of both cow and whale. “It’s an udder failure!” said American Creationist Duane Gish.

Honestly, this diagram cracks me up. But, things were about to change…

It all started in Pakistan

In 1981, a fossil was found in riverbed sediments in Pakistan, dated to around 50 million years ago (mya). It was named Pakicetus after the region where it was discovered. What’s especially interesting about this creature is that it has ear bone structures found only in modern cetaceans—specialized features that allow them to hear underwater. That strongly suggests this animal was related to early whales, because these homologous structures are unique to cetaceans.

You might be wondering why we find whale fossils in dry desert regions of the Middle East. It’s because around 50 million years ago, during the Eocene Epoch, what is now the modern Middle East was submerged under seas.

The story was only getting better

Within a decade, another remarkable whale fossil was discovered, this time in Egypt.

This fully aquatic species, Basilosaurus, is dated to about 37 mya and has small but well-formed hind limbs! (see diagram above) These limbs contain the same basic bone pattern as our legs because whales are mammals. The hind limbs, however, were tiny compared to the animal’s huge, elongated body (15–18 m long) and were not used to support its weight.

What’s important about these two fossil species is that they set the boundaries for where we should look for transitional whale fossils. If whales evolved from Pakicetus-like creatures—a four-limbed mammal that lived on land—to Basilosaurus, an animal that lived entirely in the water, then we should find transitional forms within the 13-million-year window between 50 and 37 mya.

And if those transitional animals existed, they would look like something in between Pakicetus and Basilosaurus. They would likely have lived in shallow coastal waters, between land and the open sea.

Now we know where to look, and what to look for. The game is on. Darwin’s evolution is on the line.

Evolution not only explains, it predicts

In the 1990s, researchers independently recovered multiple whale-like fossils dated between 50 and 37 mya. These fossils clearly show a gradual transition from land to water. For example, progressively reduced hind limbs and more streamlined bodies.

The nostrils of these transitional whales also show evolutionary change, shifting from the tip of the snout toward the top of the skull (diagram below). That’s how modern cetaceans breathe: by surfacing and using a blowhole on top of the head.

Genetics tells the same story

Before the era of molecular genetics, biologists hypothesized that whales were related to hoofed mammals (artiodactyls) like cows, deer, or pigs, based on early fossils and general traits. Once genetic data became available, those ideas were put to the test. Genetic analyses confirmed that hippopotamuses (hippos), which are also hoofed mammals, are the closest living relatives of modern whales. Once again, genetic evidence is congruent with the anatomical and fossil evidence.

The phylogeny (family tree) of cetaceans below shows the close relatives of modern whales. Note that these species are not direct ancestors of one another. Whales did not evolve from hippos, but whales and hippos share a common ancestor, likely similar to an extinct group called anthracotheres (not shown here). Remember, individuals don’t evolve—populations do.

In my previous post, I described why genetics rules out common-designer argument. Here, we see more examples of that.

Olfactory receptor genes, which detect molecules in the air for smell (not the most useful for animals that live in water) are found in cetacean genomes. But most (~79%) of them have become pseudogenes, meaning they are broken versions of once-functional genes. These broken genes share the same disabling mutations across different whale species!

Some whales are toothless, like the baleen whales (e.g. blue and humpback whales). Yet enamel-specific genes are still present in those whales, but they too have degraded into pseudogenes by shared mutations.

This strongly suggests that all cetaceans share a common ancestor that once had fully functional smell and enamel genes, which later became unnecessary and broke down as whales adapted to life in the water.

Cetaceans as a great example of macroevolution

Some doubt the creative power of evolution, claiming it only produces variations within a species - microevolution. But in the case of cetacean evolution, we can clearly trace the transition from land-dwelling mammals to fully aquatic whales and dolphins—step by step through the fossil record—as hind limbs reduce, bodies streamline, and nostrils migrate toward the top of the head.

Evolution not only explains the evidence we have, but it also predicts the kinds of transitional forms we should find, and that’s exactly what we see.

Question for you

After seeing the fossil, anatomical, and genetic evidence for whale evolution, how does this affect your view on God’s creating act? Do you still think God created all whales de novo, exactly as they are today—or that God could have used evolution to shape whales from land-dwelling mammals over time?

Personally, I think the latter one is much more creative, and much compelling given the evidence.

About the author:

Hi! I am Chi-Jing Leow, a PhD student studying evolutionary developmental genetics. I am also a follower of Jesus, and I care deeply about exploring the topics at the intersection of science and faith.

Leave a comment

Share

P.S.: When I first learned about cetacean evolution from Dr. Bebej’s lecture (link below), it blew my mind. I think that for many people—including me—once they understand what evolution is, biology begins to make sense at a whole other level.

Reference:
https://evolution.berkeley.edu/what-are-evograms/the-evolution-of-whales/