Michael Ebifegha

Were humans created, or did they evolve? This debate between science, which is confined to the material realm, and religion, which addresses both the material and immaterial domains, continues to rage. In “Creation or Evolution?”, Michael Ebifegha examines the constraints of science as an explanatory framework for the origin of species and compares the contemporary world to a hypothetical world under the influence of evolutionary processes and agency. Additionally, he considers the irrelevance of the earth’s age to the creationism–evolutionism debate. He stresses that knowledge of the intersection between the origin of life and the origin of species is required to establish the latter.

According to evolutionary theory, when two organisms have similar material features, they should have a common ancestral progenitor. For Charles Darwin and his followers, this is sufficient reason to hypothesize bacteria-to-human evolution (macroevolution). However, both the material, such as the brain, and the immaterial, such as the mind, characterize the development of living systems. When considered from both of these perspectives as opposed to only the material realm, would today’s scientific community reach the same conclusion? Those who adhere to good science would say no because science does not interact with the immaterial realm, but those who cling only to materialism would say yes because their espousal of pseudoscience overrides scientific principles and laws. Although science has limits, pseudoscience has none and hence plays to evolutionist Pierre Teilhard de Chardin’s assertion that evolution is a movement whose orbit transcends the natural sciences and has invaded a myriad of other disciplines.

Ebifegha looks beyond such simplistic and materialistic points of view. For example, what would scientists deduce is the biological relationship between two organisms with (1) similar brains and minds, (2) dissimilar brains and minds, (3) similar brains but dissimilar minds, and (4) dissimilar brains but similar minds? Within the limits of real science, the answer is that the relationship is indeterminate. However, to Darwinists, there is no distinction between the brain and the mind. Thus, Darwinists will give the same answer to all possible combinations because the preconceived conclusion is that they all share a common ancestor. This simple illustration fulfills the three attributes that Darwinists L. C. Birch and P. R. Ehrlick assign to evolutionism: (1) every conceivable observation can be fitted into it; (2) it is outside empirical science; and (3) no one can think of ways in which to test it. Thus, evolutionism parallels creationism with regard to scientific limitations.

Ebifegha contends that within the domain of science, creation is a primary natural process and evolution is a subordinate or secondary natural process. Considering the scientific fact that cell division (a creation process) provides the raw product for mutation (an evolutionary process), he asserts that within the limits of science creation and evolution operate in harmony and so we expect a creation–evolution unity and not controversy. However, outside the limit of science, he stresses, there is a controversy between creationism (belief in God’s creation account in the Scriptures based on scientific evidence) and evolutionism (belief in Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution based on scientific evidence). Creationism and evolutionism analyze the same scientific data but offer different philosophical conclusion about who we are, where we came from, and where we are going. Because evolutionism is limited to the material domain, creationism is the authentic worldview.

Ebifegha’s book is both inspiring to educators and accessible to general readers. The book offers a deeper understanding of the issues and supplements historical records, allowing readers to piece together a reliable perception of what transpired in the distant past.