In this blog post, I’ll take the conflict between faith and science that I’ve experienced as a starting point to carefully examine the core issues in the creationism-evolution debate, including the fossil record, the debate over transitional forms, vestigial organs, and the interpretation of DNA.

My Childhood and the Beginnings of My Faith

I’ve attended church since I was a child. As someone raised in a Christian household, I have many memories from my school days of being dragged to church services by my parents. At the time, I had neither a strong conviction that God actually existed nor a strong aversion to the idea.
However, confusion arose when I learned about the theory of evolution in middle and high school biology classes. The stories I had heard at church seemed to conflict with what was written in the textbooks, and I wondered how the explanations in those science textbooks could be accepted as such a well-established theory. At the same time, if God did exist, I wanted to know what the grounds were for refuting the theory of evolution, but at that time, I was unable to properly respond to my friends’ criticisms and simply swept the issue under the rug.

Confidence in My Faith and Subsequent Changes

Even after becoming a college student, I continued attending church, and through various experiences, my faith in God grew stronger. As my faith matured, I naturally accepted the creation story recorded in the Bible. On the other hand, I dismissed the theory of evolution as merely the claims of non-believers or textbook explanations, and I didn’t give it much thought.
However, as I continued in my faith for a long time, I began to realize that an attitude of blind belief was dangerous. I realized that this blindness was one of the reasons others criticized Christianity, and that it could also conflict with the spirit taught in the Bible. So, I took a renewed interest in studying the theory of evolution and began seeking out lectures on creationism as well. In the process, my conviction regarding the Bible and God actually deepened in some respects.

The Nature of Science and Religion — The Difference in Testability

First, religious claims—particularly the existence of supernatural beings—are difficult to verify directly through empirical observation. Since science is generally regarded as a body of knowledge based on empirical evidence and falsifiability, it is inherently difficult to scientifically prove or disprove the existence of supernatural beings.
It is worth noting here that the theory of evolution itself is not composed entirely of facts that have been directly and empirically verified. The theory of evolution posits that today’s organisms originated from a single common ancestor and that small changes accumulated over a long period of time, leading to significant diversification. While there is ample evidence supporting this hypothesis, no one has ever directly observed the entire process with their own eyes; therefore, some aspects remain speculative.

The Core of Evolutionary Theory and the Questions It Raises

One of the core assumptions of evolutionary theory is the theory of common descent—that is, the idea that all species branched off from a common ancestor. The central phenomenon in this hypothesis is speciation, which is the process by which new species emerge from a single lineage over time. Evolutionary theory explains that small-scale changes observable in everyday life (microevolution) accumulate over time to eventually result in large-scale changes (macroevolution).
Criticism of the theory stems primarily from the lack of evidence for “intermediate stages.” The argument is that if the evolutionary process occurred gradually, there should be numerous connecting links (transitional forms) bridging the periods before and after speciation, and these should be frequently found in the fossil record. However, some argue that there are almost no fossils of such continuous intermediate forms and point to this as a weakness of evolutionary theory.
Archaeopteryx is often cited as a representative example of an intermediate fossil, but critics argue that this single specimen does not constitute continuous evidence of a “gradual transition from reptiles to birds.” Illustrations depicting the evolutionary process of humans are often reconstructed based on small bone fragments or partial remains, leaving considerable room for interpretation. For example, there have been reports of fossils that were once interpreted as intermediate stages but were later reclassified as resulting from other causes, such as disease, following detailed analysis.

Perspectives on Supporting Evidence

Evolutionists cite not only fossils but also vestigial organs and genetic (DNA) similarities as evidence. Vestigial organs refer to structures that once served a function but have since lost that function; however, since recent research has revealed their functions in some cases, the simple equation “vestigial organ = no function” does not hold true.
DNA similarity is useful in explaining common descent, but it is also open to alternative interpretations. Specifically, it is argued that DNA similarity can be explained by assuming that an intelligent being with a similar design or purpose created the system. Therefore, this evidence also leaves room for interpretation.
Even within the field of evolutionary theory, some scholars have proposed theories advocating for “rapid emergence.” This idea posits that new species emerge rapidly through genetic recombination within a single generation or a short period, rather than being formed slowly over thousands of generations; however, this view has not gained widespread acceptance.

Thinking Beyond Dichotomies

The point I wish to emphasize in this blog post is that we should first abandon the simplistic dichotomous thinking that equates “evolution = science” with “creationism = religion.” While the theory of evolution is widely accepted today, it is fundamentally a hypothesis based on a combination of evidence and inferences. Creationism, on the other hand, is a perspective grounded in supernatural explanations and is, by its very nature, distinct from scientific verification.
Ultimately, any topic that has not been empirically confirmed requires some form of “faith.” Rather than unconditionally accepting the theory of evolution, I believe we need to approach it with an open mind, understanding what evidence the hypothesis is based on and which parts are inferences. I, too, am in the process of asking questions and studying—having moved past my initial confusion—to help both my faith and my knowledge mature further.

Creationism and the Limits of Scientific Proof

Since creationism fundamentally presupposes a transcendent being—God—it cannot be fully proven through observation alone or established as a scientific law. While the theory of evolution forms a scientific framework through observation and inference, creationism can also present supporting evidence through the Bible, historical records, and various traces left in nature.
The issue is that when one approaches the origin itself, the realm of faith remains. While science excels at explaining and predicting observable phenomena, attempting to explain the ultimate cause of existence inevitably involves belief and interpretation. Therefore, when addressing creationism, it is necessary to adopt an attitude that distinguishes between scientific data and faith-based interpretation.

The Diversity and Complexity of Life—Traces of Design

The diversity, specificity, and complexity of living organisms are frequently cited as key arguments in support of creationism. While evolutionary theory explains many developments as the cumulative result of chance and natural selection, it is argued that chance alone cannot sufficiently account for the complexity of highly organized life forms.
Taking the Second Law of Thermodynamics as an example—which states that entropy tends to increase—one might question the idea that high order could have arisen from purely random processes. Conversely, if an intelligent being served as the designer, it would be reasonable to view complex interactions and sophisticated functions as the result of deliberate planning and implementation.
A closer look at the blueprint of living organisms reveals that DNA, as an information code, programs the structure and function of all living things. The entire process of protein synthesis within a cell consists of precise codes and mechanical processes, and the genetic information of a single bacterium alone contains data equivalent to hundreds or even thousands of encyclopedias.
Even for a very simple protein, calculating the probability of its formation by chance yields an extremely small number; one calculation suggests that the probability of certain minimal proteins being synthesized by chance is as low as 1/10^78,616—a value so small it is difficult to comprehend. Such probabilistic evidence casts doubt on the claim that all life arose solely by chance.

Clues to a Common Code and Design

Another interesting point is that diverse life forms share the same genetic code and protein synthesis mechanisms. While evolutionary theory explains this through a common ancestor, it is also a natural interpretation that a single Designer used similar basic rules to design different life forms.
Just as a single programming language (such as C) can be used to create software for different purposes in computer programming, the perspective that diverse life forms were created using the same chemical and molecular rules is intuitively easy to understand.

Biblical Accounts and the Case of Noah’s Flood

Creationists also attempt to support the historical credibility of the biblical accounts. A prime example is the story of Noah’s Ark, which is described in the Bible in relatively specific detail, including its size and structure. Based on this, researchers have built full-scale models and conducted sea trials, with reports indicating that the design’s stability has been confirmed.
Furthermore, traces of sedimentary layers indicating a global flood, as well as artifacts such as wooden fragments claimed to be the remains of Noah’s Ark—found in mountainous regions traditionally associated with the ark (e.g., near Mount Ararat)—have been reported. Some claim that radiometric dating of these artifacts points to a time period consistent with the biblical account. Such evidence is presented as grounds for discussing the historical plausibility of the Noah story.

Science, Faith, and an Open Mind

However, even the various pieces of evidence mentioned above do not ultimately prove the fundamental cause of creation itself through science. When it comes to the question of origin, the realm of faith ultimately comes into play, and in that sense, creationism remains a matter of faith.
Speaking from my own experience, I refused to be a person of blind faith, so I studied the theory of evolution and reached my own conclusions. Conversely, I believe it is important for those who advocate for the theory of evolution to fully understand creationism and adopt an attitude that allows for fair criticism. When both sides engage in discussion with a slightly more objective and broader perspective, science and faith can complement each other and foster a deeper understanding.