I am a proud graduate of Virginia Tech. Back in the 1980's, "General Education" classes, called "Core" classes at the time at Tech, included some challenging subjects for me. For example, a quarter of Trigonometry and a quarter of Calculus were required courses for all Liberal Arts majors.
Now another "Gen Ed." requirement at Tech was a science. I took a year of Biology, and for the first two quarters, my professor was Dr. Patterson. It was unusual that the Dean of the entire Biology department was teaching a "Gen ed." class. He was the nicest guy, but consistently 'monotone' in style. He would simply draw charts and write information which was shown on an overhead projector. From those classes in 1986 and 1987, the main thing I learned was that calcium is used in a huge number of chemical functions in the body.
I say with confidence, I am not a scientist of any sort. Fortunately for me, and for others who are not science experts, we can still know God. In fact, you will not discover God through science. Why? God is Spirit, as Christ revealed as recorded in John 4:24. Being Spirit, we are only able to know God because He revealed Himself to us. Incredibly enough, God has ultimately revealed Himself to us as the Spirit who became incarnate (in flesh). Jesus was fully God and fully human.
A debate persists regarding whether human beings (and all living things) were created directly, or whether they evolved. There will always be some strife since some rely on empirical analysis, whereas others rely on God's revelations in the inspired Scriptures.
Making only two points, I say that regarding empirical analysis, to the credit of my Biology textbook which was assigned for Dr. Patterson's class, that textbook acknowledged the "Theory of Evolution" is a theory and not fact, since it has never been fully proven. (Ironically, I had a professor at CCU who stated to our class that we need to realize that evolution is true.)
Secondly, Christians should not be adverse to empirical analysis. For example, we all have a genetic make-up, which comes from our parents. If neither a mom nor a dad have it in their genes for one of their children to be born with purple eyes, their baby cannot have purple eyes, with one exception. (It is important not to mistake evolution with adaptation, which are changes which take place which are available within the genes.)
Regarding that exception, the baby could have purple eyes if there was a mutation. The theory of evolution is based on mutations. But mutations are random, and mutations usually have a negative affect, not a positive affect.
Thus the debating begins, which as a Virginia Tech Liberal Arts major, I completely step out of. Yet if you have a gift for science, this may be a subject for you to pursue.
For me, as someone who believes the Scriptures contain revelations from God, since the composition of Scriptures was inspired by God, that is my source of truth. And within those revelations I have learned that God is purposeful in what He does. In God's creation, there is "telos," an ultimate goal in completion. God did not haphazardly create the universe. Genesis shows He created it with a purpose, and with distinct order.
Sadly, in this day and age, within the overall Christian community in the United States, us folks who believe evolution is false are in a minority. In fact, I think some people in the Christian community look down on me because I advocate "creation."
I am not compromising. I totally believe that Adam and Eve were real people. I totally believe that living beings were created directly from the work of God. I stand by my conviction that Scriptures were inspired by God, and I stand by my interpretation of Scripture, which has involved insight from sages who love God.
I encourage you to investigate the revelations of God in Scripture for yourself.
Hunter Irvine
