Christianity and Science IV: Evolution and the Meaning of Life
[Part 4 of 4 on a Christian’s view of science.]The Elephant in the Room
For many people, the sticking point between science and Christianity can be summed up in one word: evolution. On one side, evolutionary theory is presented as the scientific explanation for the origin of life. On the other side, Christianity confesses a Creator who made heaven and earth. Which is true? Can an intelligent person believe in Creation? Can a Christian be an evolutionist?
To address these questions honestly, we need to define terms carefully, recognize the limits of science, and examine the hidden philosophical commitments that often travel under the banner of evolution. Most importantly, we need to see how Christianity not only explains the origins of life but also offers what no scientific theory can: meaning, morality, and hope.
Defining Our Terms: Micro and Macro
Whenever “evolution” is discussed, definitions matter.
Microevolution refers to small-scale changes within a species over time. For example, bacteria can develop resistance to antibiotics, and finch populations can show different beak sizes depending on environmental pressures. These are observable, testable changes. Christians readily acknowledge such variation—it reflects the adaptability God placed within his creatures.
Macroevolution, however, is something different. It claims that all life forms descended from a common ancestor through undirected natural processes across millions of years. This includes the transformation of simple organisms into complex beings, such as fish into mammals or apes into humans. Unlike microevolution, macroevolution is not directly observable or testable. It is inferred as a broad narrative explaining the diversity of life.
The problem arises when macroevolution is treated not as a tentative scientific model but as an unquestionable dogma. At that point, it shifts from science into philosophy—what Karl Popper, one of the greatest philosophers of science of the twentieth century, once called a “metaphysical research program.”
The Challenges of Evolutionary Theory
While many scientists affirm evolution as the dominant framework in biology, there are great challenges and limitations within the theory itself.
Irreducible Complexity
Certain biological systems appear to require all their parts at once in order to function. Michael Behe popularized this point with examples like the bacterial flagellum—essentially a microscopic outboard motor that propels bacteria. If you remove even a single protein component, the system fails. Darwin himself admitted that if such systems existed, they would pose serious problems for his theory. How could step-by-step, unguided mutations build such complexity gradually?The Fossil Record
Darwin predicted that transitional fossils would eventually fill the gaps between major groups of organisms. Instead, over 150 years of fossil discovery has revealed long periods of stability (“stasis”) interrupted by the sudden appearance of fully formed species. The Cambrian Explosion is the most striking example: within a relatively short geological window, most major body plans appear abruptly, with no clear evolutionary precursors. Even evolutionary paleontologists debate how to reconcile this with the gradualist model.The Origin of Life
Even if macroevolution could explain how species diversify, it does not explain how life began in the first place. The leap from non-living chemistry to the first self-replicating cell remains unsolved. Experiments in “abiogenesis” (life from non-life) have not produced anything close to a living cell. The cell is not a simple blob of protoplasm but a miniature factory filled with information, molecular machines, and energy systems. Where did that first burst of information come from?Genetic Information and Limits
Mutations can alter existing genes, but can they generate genuinely new, functional information? Many mutations are neutral or harmful, and beneficial mutations typically involve a loss or modification of existing function rather than the creation of new structures. The genome also shows evidence of built-in limits: organisms adapt within certain boundaries (microevolution), but those boundaries don’t stretch indefinitely (macroevolution).Convergent Evolution
Different organisms often arrive at remarkably similar structures independently—like the wings of birds, bats, and insects, or the camera-like eyes of humans and octopuses. If evolution is driven by unguided, random processes, why would it repeatedly “discover” the same solutions? Convergence suggests either a deeper organizing principle or a Designer who imprinted order into creation.The Fine-Tuning Problem
Although often discussed in physics, fine-tuning applies to biology as well. From the delicate balance of proteins in blood clotting to the precise folding of proteins in cells, countless biological systems operate on razor-thin margins. Evolutionary explanations often appeal to immense stretches of time and chance, but “chance plus time” is not an adequate mechanism to account for the precision and interdependence of these systems.
Raising these challenges is not done to strawman evolutionary theory, but to show that the theory is not a matter of clear, undeniable evidence. In the end, it is an untestable theory that rests on unspoken philosophical commitments.
The Hidden Faith of Evolutionism and it’s Conflicting Premises
At its core, the grand narrative of macroevolution is not simply about biology. It carries with it a worldview: that life is the result of undirected processes, that humans are accidents of nature, and that meaning and morality are societal constructions.
This worldview—sometimes called naturalism—begins with the belief that only natural causes exist. If naturalism is assumed, then of course life must be explained without God. But notice: those are actually conflicting premises. How could a supernatural god make itself known in the physical world if every action that it performs is regarded as an act of nature? You cannot disprove the existence of a supernatural being any more than you can prove its existence.
This is why debates over evolution often feel like debates over faith. Because they often are. On one side is faith in naturalism; on the other side is faith in God. Both interpret the evidence through their respective lenses. The difference is that the Christian lens accounts not only for biological diversity but also for the deeper realities of meaning, morality, and hope.
Christianity’s Positive Vision
From a Christian perspective, the doctrine of creation is not a scientific hypothesis but a theological confession. We believe, teach, and confess: “I believe in God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth.” This faith gives a richer account of life than evolutionism ever could.
Order: The world is intelligible because it was created by the Logos—the Word through whom all things were made (John 1:3). This order is what allows science to function in the first place.
Life: Human beings are not accidents but the crown of God’s creation. Our rationality, morality, and longing for relationship flow from being created by and for God.
Meaning: Evolutionism reduces meaning to survival and reproduction. Christianity anchors meaning in God’s purposes. “For in him we live and move and have our being” (Acts 17:28).
Hope: Evolutionism offers only death and decay, eternal extinction. Christianity promises resurrection and eternal life through Jesus Christ.
Illustrations: Fine-Tuning and DNA
Two examples from modern science highlight Christianity’s explanatory power:
The fine-tuning of the universe: Physical constants like gravity, the speed of light, and the ratio of fundamental forces are set at values so precise that even tiny deviations would make life impossible. Scientists of all worldviews acknowledge this fine-tuning. For the Christian, it is no surprise—the universe reflects intentional design. The impossibility of our planet’s ability to host life is not a crazy coincidence, it’s the gift of our Father.
DNA as digital code: The genetic code in every cell functions like a complex information system, with instructions, storage, and error correction. Information is not explained by chance; it always points back to a mind.
Evolutionism, when embraced as a worldview, strips life of meaning and leaves people without hope. If we are merely products of chance, then concepts like morality and dignity collapse. Romans 1 describes how humanity soon exchanges the truth about God for a lie and worships created things rather than the Creator. Belief in macroevolution sets you on this destructive and empty path.
The Gospel, however, says that you are not a product of blind chance. In fact, God loved you even when you didn’t acknowledge him. Jesus Christ, the eternal Son of God, entered history to redeem his creation. In his cross, we find not only an explanation for life but also forgiveness, purpose, and eternal hope.
The Christian Calling in Science
Recognizing evolutionism as philosophy does not mean rejecting science. Christians can and should engage in scientific work with joy. Our calling is to study, steward, and serve. Whether in genetics, medicine, agriculture, or technology, Christians can explore creation as an act of worship. As Kepler once said, science is “thinking God’s thoughts after Him.” But as we do, we remember: science describes the how of creation in part, but only God’s Word explains the why. The how may remain mysterious in many ways, but the why is clear: God created the world out of love and redeemed it through Christ.
Reflection Questions:
How does distinguishing between microevolution and macroevolution clarify the conversation about science and faith?
Why is it important to recognize the philosophical assumptions behind evolutionary theory?
Reach out to a faith-filled scientist who does not assume the conclusions of evolutionary theory. Ask them how they think about this topic and the meaningful nature of their work in light of their faith.
Suggested Scripture: Genesis 1-2 (Consider the care and meaning behind God’s creative acts.)
Further Sources for Diving Deeper
Michael Behe, Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution (Free Press, 1996).
Introduces the concept of irreducible complexity with examples from biochemistry.Stephen Meyer, Darwin’s Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design (HarperOne, 2013).
A thorough critique of the Cambrian Explosion as a challenge to Darwinian evolution.David Berlinski, The Devil’s Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions (Basic Books, 2009).
Written by a secular mathematician, showing limits of evolutionary naturalism.Karl Popper, Objective Knowledge (Oxford University Press, 1972).
Argues that Darwinian theory often functions more like a metaphysical research program than empirical science.Kenneth Samples, A World of Difference: Putting Christian Truth-Claims to the Worldview Test (Baker, 2007).
Helpful for comparing evolutionism (naturalism) with the Christian worldview in terms of meaning, morality, and hope.Martin Luther, Large Catechism, Creed, First Article.
A Lutheran confession of God as Creator that affirms science as vocation while rejecting naturalism.
