Without Excuse: Evidence for Creation by God

By Roddy Bullock

By methodically stepping through a series of ten sequential inquiries the author explores the evidentiary basis for explanations of human origins. Original arguments and unique insights systematically reveal the flaws of natural selection and build the logical case for reasonably believing that humans were created by the God of the Bible accordi

• Language: English
• Publisher: Creation Reformation Publishing
• Release date: Aug 13, 2023
• ISBN: 9798987557945

Book preview

Without Excuse

Evidence for Creation by God

Roddy Bullock

Without Excuse: Evidence for Creation by God

First Edition (Revised February 2024)

Copyright © 2022 Roddy Bullock

All rights reserved.

ISBN: 979-8-9875579-0-7

Creation Reformation Publishing

Cincinnati, OH

www.creationreformation.com

More information and offers at www.CreationReformationPublishing.com

DEDICATION

To Richard Dawkins

from whom I was first taught Darwinism and

who I hope becomes a creationist in this life

rather than the next.

CONTENTS

Preface: ​The Author’s Inquiry             i

Part 1: Laying the Foundation

Inquiry 1: Philosophical Foundations             1

Inquiry 2: Unbiased Science             15

Inquiry 3: Defining Evolution             27

Part 2: Dismantling Darwinism

Inquiry 4: Power of Natural Selection             43

Inquiry 5: Limits of Genetic Mutations              59

Inquiry 6: Regarding Speciation             83

Part 3: The Case for Creation by God

Inquiry 7: Intelligence Beyond Nature             103

Inquiry 8: The God of the Bible             113

Inquiry 9: Biblical Creation             129

Inquiry 10: Glorifying God             143

Appendices

Appendix I: Darwin’s Diagram, Annotated             153

Appendix II: The Natural Selection Paradox             155

preface:

the Author’s Inquiry

For thousands of years, adherents to Judaism and Christianity embraced the Biblical account of the origins of the human species—that God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.[1] Then, in 1859, Charles Darwin published On the Origin of Species, setting forth a theory purporting to explain that species evolved by natural processes. Darwin’s book remains the foundation of evolutionary biology, which we commonly refer to as the theory of evolution.

Over time, Darwin’s book and his theory have grown to occupy an outsized and unchallengeable place in modern science. In On the Origin of Species, Darwin did not address the origin of the human species directly. However, his theory implies a natural origin for all life forms, and the theory of evolution today is understood to explain human existence. Even among Bible believers there is widespread acceptance of evolution as being scientifically true and compatible with the Genesis account of human creation by God.[2] Can we intellectually reconcile the two accounts of creation? Is it rationally consistent to hold both beliefs as true?

I began my inquiry when my oldest child entered public high school. At the time, I believed the Genesis account of creation, a belief whose foundation I had never studied. I also believed, at minimum, that evolution as taught in public schools had some scientific value and explanatory significance. Therefore, I had no genuine interest in opposing its teachings. But I was willing to learn. After all, even if Darwin’s theory turned out to be correct, in my heart of hearts I would, I reasoned, still believe that God somehow created human beings.

For my children’s sake, I undertook—not without trepidation—an intentional study of evolution. Prepared to be convinced of evolutionary theory’s truth claims, I knew I may be headed for an existential crisis, a genuine dilemma. If I found evolution to be a plausible explanation for human existence, as a Bible-believing Christian I could no longer embrace the Genesis account of the origin of man as literally true. Jesus himself could now be considered nothing more than one more eventual, inevitable descendant of the first life form on Earth, with his life and death carrying no more significance than that of every purposeless bacterium, sea sponge, chordate, tetrapod, or ape that had lived and died—in a purely earthly lineage—before him.

If my inquiry led me to the conclusion that evolutionary theory held the most reasonable explanation for the origin of the human species, my belief that God somehow created human beings would be difficult to maintain. Further, if I found the theory of evolution explains the origin of the human species, then God would likely have no meaningful relevance to the human condition.

One of the first books I read, of course, was Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species.[3] I discovered Darwin to be an honest scientist with a theory worth exploring. Moreover, Darwin’s presentation in On the Origin of Species comes across as bold but humble: bold because he was knowingly ushering in a new way of thinking about the nature of living beings, humble because he recognized that there are many difficulties with his theory.

My inquiry led me to a plethora of further books, starting with The Blind Watchmaker[4] by Richard Dawkins, for whom I have much respect, which I found interesting and easy to read. I was not the one whom Dawkins criticized in The Blind Watchmaker as desperately want[ing] to not to have to believe in Darwinism. Rather, I was fully prepared to believe. I continued my inquiry by reading more books and articles written for popular audiences by leading authors such as Ernst Mayr, Stephen Jay Gould, Michael Ruse, Jonathan Weiner, and authoritative publications such as the National Academy of Science’s Teaching About Evolution, to name a few. I wanted to be sure I was giving the grand claim of Darwin’s theory—that new beneficial biological structures and kinds of organisms can come into being naturally over time—every consideration in my personal quest to arrive at the most reasonable explanation for the origin of the human species.

As both an engineer (BSME) and attorney (JD), I examined the topic not only through the lens of engineering and science but also with an eye on the valid logical treatment of each piece of evidence. The question of the origin of life, its diversity, and distinctly human origins is, at bottom, an evidentiary inquiry. I wanted to know just how reasonable it would be to embrace Darwin’s theory as an evidence-supported explanation for the present-day diversity of life. And, considering material evidence gained since Darwin’s book was published, how reasonable would it be to believe that a creative deity is responsible for the origin of life and its diversity, including the human species? And if so, how reasonable would it be to believe that the God of the Bible is that nonmaterial creator of the human species?

This book summarizes that inquiry, leading the reader through a logical progression of topics, employing at each step reasonableness as the delineator between beliefs to be rejected and beliefs to be adopted. Its purpose is not to prove anything but to present to you, the reader, with facts upon which you can reason your way to the conclusion you find most rational.

It is to Bible believers, those open to theism, and those who with a humble heart wish to carefully consider to what or to whom to ascribe human creation, that I particularly lay out the steppingstones of my own intellectual journey. Perhaps you are—as was I at the onset of my inquiry—a Bible-believing adherent to Christianity not fully convinced that the Biblical account of creation is true. If so, it is with you that I most ardently share my findings. To remain in intellectual limbo as to the origin of the human species need no longer be inevitable.

Whatever your starting point, the intricacies such a topic entails may give you pause. If so, please know that it is to the ordinary reader that I present my findings, simplifying concepts to the greatest extent possible with sufficient substance for our purposes of reasoning our way to the most reasonable explanation for the origin of the human species. Let our inquiry begin.

Roddy Bullock ​ ​July 20, 2023

PART 1

Laying the Foundation

Inquiry 1: Philosophical Foundations

Our explanations for origins, including human origins, can go only as far as our philosophy of reality, i.e., our worldview, will permit. Thus, it is critical to adopt a worldview open to all inquiries.

Inquiry 2: Unbiased Science

Science is best used as a tool for discovery if practiced objectively in an unbiased manner. The practice of science will always follow the definition of science.

Inquiry 3: Defining Evolution

The term evolution can be defined in many ways. For the theory to be properly critiqued it must be defined in a falsifiable manner.

Inquiry One:

philosophical foundations

When considering human origins, is it reasonable to adopt a view of reality that places no boundaries on thinking?

Why is it that for centuries virtually everyone—scientists included—believed that the sun circled the earth? What changed that now virtually everyone—scientists included—believes the opposite?

In seeking answers to these questions, science historian James Burke relates the following insightful account:

Somebody once observed to the eminent philosopher Wittgenstein how stupid medieval Europeans living before the time of Copernicus must have been that they could have looked at the sky and thought that the sun was circling the earth. Surely a modicum of astronomical good sense would have told them that the reverse was true. Wittgenstein is said to have replied: I agree. But I wonder what it would have looked like if the sun had been circling the earth.[5]

The point is that it would have looked exactly the same. When we observe nature, we see what we want to see according to what we believe we know about it at the time.[6] Said differently, we observe nature according to our philosophy of nature—what we believe we know to be true about the world.

What does philosophy have to do with our inquiry into the origin of the human species? Everything, actually! In any intellectual inquiry about nature, one’s starting point of belief about the world almost always dictates one’s ending point of understanding how it works. At best, the starting point dictates the range of possible ending points. This constraint is no less true in the realm of seeking after the truth of our human origins. One’s philosophical starting point determines the range of possible explanations for any natural phenomena—including the origin of the human species.

Consider a simple yet sufficient definition of philosophy as being the study of the nature, causes, or principles ofreality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning.[7] Note we are most interested in the nature of reality—what is real in the universe—and the causes of reality. What caused it all?

Because logical reasoning is the bedrock upon which we will progress as we inquire as to the most reasonable explanation for the origin of the human species, philosophy is exactly the study upon which we must first place our feet.

Though a vast and complicated topic, the world of philosophical views will, for the purposes of our inquiry, be reduced to the two most basic frameworks possible: closed and open. At a level sufficiently appropriate for our purposes, beliefs related to the possible existence of a transcendent nonmaterial creator is the core difference between the two frameworks: Whereas a closed philosophy supports no inquiry into nonmaterial causal aspects of nature (the universe is closed to a transcendent creator), an open philosophy supports the possibility of nonmaterial causal aspects of nature (the universe is open to a transcendent creator).

PHILOSOPHY

The study of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning.

It is significant to note that while most people never think about philosophical views, everyone has one.[8] Our philosophy, whether or not we realize it, frames the lens through which we view our world, the optic through which we experience reality and determine truth. And each of us perceives our truth through either a closed or open philosophy.

Of course, truth would not be truth if it changed according to the philosophy adopted in its pursuit. Truth is not changed by what anyone thinks about it. Truth, by definition, is absolute, inflexible, unchanging. It does not vary according to the philosophy one adopts to