Is God The Designer of Creation?

Thoughts on whether God used evolution or created various living organisms individually.

Evolution fundamentalism and activism

For centuries, the God of the Bible has been viewed as grand Designer who took time to design and bring into being all forms of life, after their kind. Largely due to neo-Darwinian evolutionary ideas, many Christians now think God used a rather hands-off approapch, where He set things in motion in the beginning, and let evolution, through random mutations and natural selection, do the actual work.

Did God Use Evolution To Create?

Many Christians have accepted, at least in part, some form of evolution, and have integrated it into their understanding of God and nature. The Catholic church, for example, is open to the idea of human bodies having evolved from other life forms, though they insist human souls are created directly by God (see ). While I respect such efforts, I contend that evolution cannot be reconciled with creation, as presented in the Bible. Just a week a go, Pope Francis changed course from his predecessor, stating that evolution and belief in a Creator God are not incompatible.

One of the recent objections to the idea of a direct creation by God has been the apparent poor design of various organs of animals or people. A famous one is the idea that the human eye is poorly designed, as nerve fibers overlay the photoreceptors, as opposed to the octopus eye, for example, where the nerve fibers are laid out differently. This claim denotes a very poor understanding of human anatomy and physiology. The vertebrate eye light receptor pigment regenerates itself inside a layer of opaque material, getting it's nutrient from blood vessels, both of which are situated below the receptors that, if evolutionists would have their way, would have to come in front of the receptors, thus dimming visual acuity. And, to be clear, I have never heard a patient complain of poor vision because they saw their own optic nerve fibers or blood vessels in the eye. Even champions of sight, such as the eagles, have similarly laid out eyes, and it doesn't impede their vision a single bit.

Another one is based on the concept of "junk DNA" - non-coding DNA that evolutionists estimate make up the majority of our DNA, and which is viewed by them as a sandbox for mutations to occur and develop new things and functions, without directly affecting the genetic code of the host. If that were to be the case, though, one would expect vast interindividual differences in this junk DNA among modern humans, who are supposedly at the top of the evolution pyramid, not the 99.9% similarity we actually see. So much for the predictive power of evolutionary theory on this topic.

Yet another objection against creationism is the idea of vestigial organs, and a common example given is whale's legs. Why would whales, that live in water, need rudimentary hind leg bones? For some reason, evolutionists cannot accept the idea of a Creator that could use a general template (whether DNA or otherwise) to make things like animals. They seem to think a Creator would have to design and create every single creature from scratch. This is just another example of willfully ignoring how creation would have most likely taken place. According to the Bible, we are made in the image of God, so human creation should give us some hints about how God created, right? Are architects forbidden from using templates, or ideas from previous projects, in new ones? Is that necessarily an example of "patching things up", as evolutionists contend?

Clues From The Way Humans Create

I will illustrate this last point with another example: in 1808, Beethoven composed the Fantasia in C minor, Op. 80 for piano and orchestra. Take a listen:

Sixteen years later, Beethoven composed his 9th Symphony, and incorporated the choral theme of his Fantasy in its 4th movement:

Now, would it be fair to say that Beethoven did a poor job with his Fantasy, and had to patch it up and correct it to make it fit the 9th symphony?

As a matter of fact, Beethoven had very little time to write his Fantasy (less than a month), and even less time to rehearse it before its premiere. The first performance was botched, to the point where, due to a mistake in performance, the conductor had to stop in the middle of the piece and start over again. Nevertheless, his Fantasy was, and still is considered today, a masterpiece, and is played frequently on concert hall stages throughout the world.

Is his 9th symphony less valuable because he reused and expanded on a theme from an older work? Not at all. In fact, in any field of human creation, reusing old ideas is very common.

Why would we then deny God the ability and option to reuse and/or modify previous elements of his work? It seems to me like we should have no business of denying anything to God anyway :-)