Evolution

Introduction
About This Paper
I'm a Bible believing Christian who thinks the 'big-bang' and evolution are credible scientific theories, entirely compatible with the evidence and the revealed character and nature of God. By training I am a physicist, by profession, an engineer and by calling, a pastor and Bible teacher. s such, I get worried when Christians use their understanding of 'truth' to mock science and I get worried when scientists use their form of knowledge to 'disprove' the e!istence of God. In my e!perience much of the associated literature is a heady mi! of dreadful science and poor theology, that does no credit to either group. "his paper comprises a number of articles I have written on the sub#ect and research done over a number of years. It has been edited into one document with the aims of$ Countering some of the 'reasons for not accepting the scientific view. %howing that the scientific view is compatible with the character and nature of God as revealed in scripture.

About Truth
%cience is about what is seen, what is observable. &aith is about that which is unseen. %cience by definition has no grounds on which to attack faith, faith, by definition has no grounds on which to attack science. %cientists who attempt to do so are as misguided as those who use the Bible to defend God against their attacks' %o, I can happily assert that comple!ity doesn(t imply design, that there is a mechanism by which comple!ity and diversity can occur and that there is time enough for it to have happened. It doesn't threaten my faith nor does it invalidate the Bible. )volution is a perfectly sound scientific hypothesis* it fits the abundant evidence, it consistently e!plains what we observe and it makes testable predictions. t the same time, of course Genesis is true. +ot in the small-minded, narrow, scientific arena, describing the mere mechanics of creation. +o, Genesis is true in a much more profound way than that. It unveils God(s love for us, it shouts that men and women are e,ual, it declares the immense dignity and worth that God invests in us. It reveals the creative, triune nature of God and yet demonstrates that -e nonetheless graces us with genuine choice. It speaks of the battle in which we find ourselves, warns that with freedom comes responsibility. It points to God(s broken heart and -is unbreakable confidence in us. bove all it points to redemption and .esus. Imagine a world where that 'truth' was more important than whether it all happened in si! literal days or not... %cience seeks to understand the universe, to comprehend it. I am fascinated by science, I would give up my time to understand that. %cripture seeks to reveal God in Christ and how we can have eternal, loving relationship with -im and each other. I would give my life for that.

Common Arguments Against

The problem of entropy
It is argued that the so called '%econd law of "hermodynamics' stands in the way of evolution as a possibility. /f course, the first point to make is that the 'laws' of physics are simply shorthand descriptions of what we have found to work* they are not actual laws, there are no 'physics' police, wandering around on -igg's Boson's enforcing the rule of law. %econdly, this 'law' applies to 'closed systems'. "here are many different e!pressions of the 'law', but the popular version says that in a closed system, things tend towards the lowest energy state. In practice, heat doesn't flow from a cold place to a hotter one, but rather, the other way around. /rder does not naturally increase, but rather, decreases* the house doesn't spontaneously get tidier. 0ith this in mind, it is argued that the comple!ity of organic materials cannot increase* you cannot go from an amoeba to a monkey, however long you give it, because it contravenes this law. Indeed, for the same reason, you can't go from inorganic chemicals to life in the first place. But this is to misunderstand and to misapply the physics. In a closed system, such as the )arth, some parts might increase in order* water droplets become e!otic and comple! snow-flakes, their state of order manifestly, increasing, a seed does become a ma#estic tree with uni,ue patterns on every leaf. 1et in the bigger picture of the overall system, entropy is increasing* the earth is cooling, its rate of rotation slowing, its magnetic field waning, the continents drifting, the atmosphere leaking. "his 'law' is not a valid argument against evolution.

The lack of time

It is argued that there simply isn't enough time for evolution to have created the diversity we see. "o get from flying dinosaurs to modern birds, from a single-cell amoeba to a monkey... It's an easy argument to make, the analogy often used is of monkeys, typing at random, trying to produce the works of %hakespeare. It is an impossible task. If all the worlds in the universe were filled with monkeys, all typing from the dawn of time, they wouldn't yet have come close. Incredible2 +ot really, #ust simple arithmetic. 3et's give our monkeys a break and ask them to produce, not the whole works, but #ust a well known phrase. 45omeo, 5omeo, wherefore art thou, 5omeo26 nd let's simplify it further, we won't worry about the punctuation or capitalisation* #ust the right letters in the right order. -ow many monkeys and how long do you think2 "here are 78 characters in the alphabet, so hitting keys at random, there is a one in twenty si! chance of the character produced being the correct one. "he odds then, of getting all thirty one letters in the right order is one in twenty si!, times one in twenty si!, times one in twenty si!, times... in short, 78 multiplied by itself, 9: times. rithmetically, 78 raised to the power 9:. "hat's a : in ;9,:<9,:;=,===,===,===,===,===,===,===,===,===,===,===,=== chance, too big a number to understand. -ow about we get the monkeys to #ust type 45omeo6 instead2 "hat's 78 raised to the power >, a mere one chance in :7 million they will produce 45omeo6 instead of some other combination of five characters. "he argument then is simple. "he genetic code, for even simple life, is more comple! than our 9: character phrase, let alone a five letter word. Given that, how can we possible think that random chance could produce human life2 "here #ust isn't enough time, or anything close to it, to have done that. %o, having backed myself nicely into a corner, here's how we get out. 3et's take our five letter word again. In calculating the odds, we have assumed that each attempt at getting the right combination of letters is independent. "he outcome of attempt :>= doesn't affect the outcome of attempt : million... %o, if I get three letters right in this attempt, I start from scratch on my ne!t attempt. It's rather like the slot machines where you put your money in, pull the lever and watch the different fruit spin round. 1ou're hoping for > cherries, you get three, but then the strawberry and melon spoil the line. %o you put more money in and pull the lever again. +o cherries this time. .ust like those poor monkeys, lots effort, sometimes getting close, sometimes getting nowhere.

In more modern versions of this slot machine, if you put in enough money at the start, for say, 9 attempts, you can 'free?e' some of the fruit, so that only the columns that didn't show the cherry spin on the ne!t attempt. It vastly improves your chances of getting a whole row of cherries @though I'm sure the slot machine wins over time'A +ow, what if our monkeys had that kind of option2 0hat if, instead of throwing away attempts that had some correct letters in the right place, they were able to keep those and #ust make attempts on the ones that weren't correct2 0hat if it's more like an old-fashioned lock on a safe2 1ou know the sort, the safe cracker goes in armed with his stethoscope and twiddles the dial carefully until he hears the tumbler click. -e has the first number right and moves on to the ne!t one. -e doesn't have to get all the numbers right in one go B he can progressively work through the problem. Imagine then that the code for the safe were letters rather than numbers and that the code was five characters long. "he problem would be the same as we gave our monkeys, but they now have a very different way of solving it. "he safe still has those :7 million possible combinations but our robber doesn't go back to the start on each attempt, there is a mechanism for retaining correct answers. If we take this approach, how long does it take to achieve a match with our five letter word2 0ell, if you have /pen /ffice or )!cel and are willing to run a macro, you can download the spreadsheet following this link and then run the tests yourself. lternatively, here's the results I obtained. &irst, I created a spreadsheet that produced a > letter word, #ust like our poor monkeys were supposed to do, with each character chosen at random. fter each attempt, the spreadsheet checks to see if it had produced the word '5omeo'. If not, it tries again. %ure enough, it takes millions of attempts to produce the word completely at random, #ust like our theory suggested. %econdly, a different macro tweaks the model so that every attempt now locks any letters that are in the correct position, with subse,uent attempts only randomly choosing letters in the positions not already filled with the right one. fter >== runs of this macro, the arithmetic mean for the number of attempts re,uired to obtain 45omeo6, was 8: and the mode, >: @1ou can see the results in the graph below. +ote that it forms a classic 'normal distribution curve', demonstrating the randomness of the attempts.A "hat's right, instead of millions of attempts, it now only needs around 8=. 0ithout this mechanism for holding correct answers, it will take an average of :7 million attempts* #ust under < months if we make one attempt every second. 0ith a 'holding' mechanism, it takes less than a minute.
80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 1-10

21-30

41-50

61-70

81-90

101-110

121-130

141-150

161-170

0hat if we e!tend our challenge to a code of := characters, twice the length, what do we find2 Coubling the length adds #ust a few tries in the results from our macro* from an average of around 8= attempts for > characters, to around ;= for :=. "ranslating this into time to complete, at one attempt per second, that's ;= seconds, #ust over a minute. 0ithout the 'holding' mechanism, it would take around < billion years to obtain a result' "hat sounds e!traordinary, doesn't it2 "hat's because each time we add a character to our code, without the mechanism, we multiply by 78 the time likely to be needed to get the correct answer. 1ou can see then, that to go from := to :: characters would e!tend the time needed from < to around :== billion years' 1et with this mechanism in place, it adds #ust a few seconds. 0e can easily conclude then, that without some mechanism for holding changes, the critics are right, evolution has not had long enough, nor could it ever have long enough, to arrive at what we see all around us. Billions of years would not be sufficient. 0ith such a mechanism though, the time re,uired is surprisingly small. "he ,uestion of course, is can we see such a mechanism in operation in evolutionary theory2 "he answer is 41es.6 "he mechanism is inheritance. Genetic code is passed on to the ne!t generation, replicated down time. Changes that are neutral or beneficial, bits of the code that are in the 'right' place, are held. 4 h, but that proves our point6 I hear some saying 4there must be a designer, to have thought of such a mechanism.6 +ot so. 0ithout such a mechanism, nothing evolves. In any system where life has appeared, what we can be sure of, is that the first thing to have evolved, will have been the mechanism for passing on changes. Dillions, perhaps billions of years of random changes, none getting passed on, until eventually, a random combination that allows the mechanism to get copied down to the ne!t instance. n unbelievably slow start, a long wait until random chance produces the inheritance mechanism. But once it's there, everything is in super fast-forward mode. "ime is not the problem we thought it was.

The Fallacy of the goal

0e see around us the ecology of the world, the way in which it all fits together. )verything has its niche, like the most comple! #igsaw pu??le, every piece interlocking in minute detail. 0e look at the interactions of the stars, the physics that enables water to be a li,uid at #ust the right temperature and pressure for the )arth to have oceans. 0e see that if Elanck's Constant was #ust slightly different the universe couldn't e!ist as we know it. 0e see all this and say 4%uch intricacy, such precision, such order could only come from the most e!traordinary planning.6 But we are making the age-old mistake of presuming that what we now see was intended. 0e assume that a world with blue, water filled oceans, teeming with life, and with us humans as the pinnacle of e!istence, was the goal from the outset. But evolution doesn't re,uire any such assumption. 0hat we have now, fits together as well as it does, not because some cosmic plan dictates that it should be so, but because if it didn't fit together so well, it would fall apart, and there wouldn't be anyone to say how wonderfully it fitted' It fits so well because the individual bits have spent so long rubbing against each other, like a pebble becoming smooth by water washing over it, day after day, century after century. 0hen we see such a pebble, we don't say 4-ow ama?ing, it is so smooth, so round.6 0e know that it is the result of countless washings of sand-ladened water, gradually, infinitesimally, wearing away the rough, angular edges. It's analogous to the winner of the lottery saying 4Given the odds on me winning, there must be divine intent behind the outcome6 0e are looking through the wrong end of the telescope. 0e look at the outcome and say 4"he odds against that outcome are remote, there must be a designer who intended it.6 "rue the odds of &red wining the lottery are vanishingly small, but they are the same odds as anyone else who bought a ticket. "here are countless potential winners, each with an unfeasibly small chance of being the winner. But one of them will win. 1es, the odds against the world turning out as we now see it are unimaginably small, but they are the same as any other outcome.

-uman beings are unfeasibly unlikely, but any other outcome would be e,ually as unlikely. If we were having this debate on a world with pink seas, green skies and three-legged people, we would be saying the same 43ook how well everything fits together, look at how unlikely it is, there must have been design that intended us to have three legs...6 If there is no intended outcome, the problem of chance disappears. "he need for a creator only arises, ironically, if you assume a creator with an end product in mind.

We don't see evolution taking place today.

/f course not. 0hen we see a pebble, we don't say 4I don't believe in the gradual process of pebbles becoming round, because I don't see any of them changing from angular rocks to smooth, round pebbles.6 It would be ridiculous to assume that something that is incremental, taking centuries or more, could be seen by taking a snapshot of a pebble. %o why do we say 4)volution is wrong, I don't see any monkeys changing into people62 If you take a still from a movie, don't be surprised if you don't see any movement, looking at a snapshot of billions of years of change is hardly likely to show much change' +obody who accepts evolutionary theory suggests that change happens whilst you watch it.

How evolution works

It isn't that creatures adapt to their new environment as if there is some built-in intent and planning. 4/h, look, thin-skinned fruit is getting scarcer, we'd better grow longer beaks6. It is simply that those who were already adapted to the new environment survive, those that weren't, don't. If you have a tray with different shaped ob#ects on it and cut round holes in the tray, then give it a good shake, what happens2 ll the round ob#ects fall through, leaving the s,uare ones, the triangles, anything that isn't round, safe in the new environment. 0e don't say, 4ooh, how clever of those shapes to have adapted to their environment6. "hey were already adapted to what became the new situation B there was no intelligence forseeing the round-hole catastrophe and busily preparing otherwise vulnerable shapes for the new environment... -ere's how it works. It's all about randomness and statistics. -ang in there, it's really easy. If I have a series of numbers, I can work out the average by adding them up and dividing by the number of items. %o, if I have three birds and measure their beaks as being :=, :: and :7mm then the average length beak is :: mil. +ow, when my birds breed, I have a very good idea how long their beaks will be. "hey might be a bit less than :: or a bit more than ::, but they aren't suddenly going to be 7=. I know, this intuitively, but maths is on my side as well. -ow can I be sure2 +ormal distribution is the answer. In any population, chosen at random, the measure of any characteristic will produce the same shaped curve when the fre,uencies are plotted on a graph. Con't panic, here's an e!ample. 3et's measure the height of > year old children, chosen at random, from a town. "hen let's count how many of their heights fall into different bands. "he chart shows how many children were in each band* up to 8= cm, between 8= and ;=, between ;= and F= and so on. 1ou can see that the average is #ust over :==, but that there is a bit of a spread around that. "he spread is defined as how far items deviate from the average$ standard deviation is the arithmetic term for this. 0hat is really interesting, is that if the items are genuinely random, then over GGH of the whole population will be within three standard deviations from the average. /f course, the standard deviation does not stop items being outside that range, it simply means that it is e!tremely unlikely that they will be.

60 50 40 30 20 10 0 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160

%o, back to our birds and their beaks. 3et's see what happens using this knowledge of randomness. Generation Beak Lengths (mm)
: 7 :=, ::, :7, ::

Average
::.==

Standard Comment Deviation

=.F7 :.7< )ach pair produce 7 offspring each generation and survive for 8 generations. "his new generation of birds have beak lengths based on the average and standard deviation of the generation that produced them. +ote how this has allowed the average length to randomly increase. "he trend towards a larger beak has randomly continued, and the spread of lengths is also increasing. t the end of this generation, a famine arises. &ruit with a thicker skin is available, but only birds with beaks longer than :9mm can get to it and therefore survive. =.F= +otice that only 9=H of all the birds @from generations : B <A have survived* those with the randomly longer beak. "hey haven't adapted as a result of the problem, they fortuitously had what the new circumstance needed already. /f course, the average length for the surviving generation is higher than previously @the lower lengths having disappearedA. lso. the %tandard Ceviation is low meaning that the spread of lengths in the ne!t generation will be small and the beak length long.

:=, ::, :7, ::, :=, ::, ::, :7, ::.>F :9, :9, :<, ::

:=, ::, :7, ::, :=, ::, :7, ::, :7.:= :=, ::, ::, :7, :9, :9, :<, ::, :<, :=, :<, :8, :8, :>, F, :9, :9, ::, :>, F, :8, :9, :>, :>, :7, :=, :<, :9, F, :<, G, :7, :7, F, :>, :7, :<, G, :7, :7

7.7=

<

:<, :<, :<, :8, :8, :>, :>, :8, :<.;G :>, :>, :<, :<, :>, :<

>

:<, :<, :<, :8, :8, :>, :>, :8, :>.7> :>, :>, :<, :<, :>, :<, :8, :>, :G, :<, :>, :;, ::, :8, :F, :9, :>, :>, :F, :<, :F, :F, :7, :>, :G, :<, :;, :9, :7, :F, :8, :G, :8, :F

:.FG

If the famine continues, some of this new generation's beaks will be too short and they too will not survive. +otice though, that FFH of this generation have beaks long enough to survive.

"he table throws up a number of simple facts. Civersity is a feature of randomness and statistics. Changes don't happen because they are useful or because they may become useful. "hey #ust happen. Because of inheritance, unless the change is catastrophic @a beak too long to allow flightA, then it #ust hangs around until either it becomes useful or it changes to something else. %tatistics and probability. 5andom changes, variations. "he lethal ones die out, those that aren't #ust stay. /ccasionally a collection of random changes gives an advantage, more often a change in environment turns a neutral or mildly positive set of changes into a real winner. piece of skin that is light-sensitive and of no use. -angs around for generations. nother random change - the shape of the skin becomes slightly concave so that light gathers onto the sensitive patch. gain, for generations, no advantage - #ust a very small sub-set of the population with both characteristics. "hen some of this sub-set randomly develop a refle! that moves away from light - others develop one towards light. &inally, after generations of it not mattering something in the environment changes. It doesn't matter what. But anything in the dark dies. +ow, what was an e!tremely small population becomes almost overnight the only population. +ow all the descendants will have these characteristics and a new set of random additions can begin. 0hat this means is that variants of a species get to live alongside each other for generations. Dultiple populations of the same basic creature, but with differing characteristics based on random accretion of change. %ometimes, there will arise a change, in environment, predators, food supply etc and one variant, because of the difference, will be better suited to the new circumstance. It might be able to live longer, or live at all. It may be able to breed more effectively. 0hen this happens, in #ust a few, short generations, the 'successful' variant with the 'useful' change, becomes dominant , or occasionally, the only variant B here's an e!ample$
Gen. I ge < 9 7 : "otal : 7 9 < > 8 ; F G := J 9: 98 89 8< 8>

> > >

> >

> >

> 7= 9>

7= 9> 8>

9> 8> :7> 7<> <;=

8> :7> 7<> <8G

:7> 7<> <8G

7<> <8G

<8G G=7

<.<<)K==F F.>>)K==F :.8<)K==G 9.:;)K==G 8.::)K==G

9.:9)K=:= >.77)K=:> 7.;G)K=:> F.9F)K=:= 7.;G)K=:> = = = = = = =

= = = = =

> 7=

G=7 :;9;

> 7= 9>

8> :7>

G=7 :;9; 99<G

7= 9> 8> :7> 7<>

G=< :;<: 99>9 8<>;

:.:>)K=:: F.=:)K=:> 7.;G)K=:>

; 8 > < 9 7 : "otal : : : : 7 : : 7 < : : 7 < F

:.7>)K==> 7.<G)K==> <.G8)K==> G.FF)K==> :.G;)K==8 9.G7)K==8 ;.F:)K==8 :.>>)K==;

9.G7)K==8 <.;7)K=:< G.<=)K=:< ;.F:)K==8 G.<=)K=:< :.F;)K=:> :.>>)K==; :.F;)K=:> 9.;9)K=:> 9.:=)K==; 9.;9)K=:> ;.<9)K=:> 8.:;)K==; ;.<9)K=:> :.<F)K=:8 :.79)K==F :.<F)K=:8 7.G>)K=:8 7.<>)K==F 7.G>)K=:8 >.F;)K=:8 <.FF)K==F >.F;)K=:8 :.:;)K=:;

:.F;)K=:> 9.;9)K=:> ;.<9)K=:> :.<F)K=:8 7.G>)K=:8 >.F;)K=:8 :.:;)K=:; 7.99)K=:;

0e start with a creature that lives four years, breeding each year of its life, and with its partner, bearing two offspring. In our first year of observation, there are 7= creatures of this type, > in each year group. 1ou can see how the population of this variant of the species grows over the ne!t 8 years, to more than 7= times the original si?e. In year ;, something happens for one creature born that year* perhaps the final random change in a se,uence that makes it live longer, perhaps an environmental event that makes e!isting changes more effective, perhaps a combination of these. But whatever the cause, one creature with specific characteristics that can be inherited, lives seven years instead of four. /f course, this makes almost no difference at all. "he new variant is less than a tenth of :H of the total population, and even though the difference is dominant @it always appears in future generations, it continues to be of no importance through the ne!t 7= or so generations. By year 9:, there are huge numbers of both types, 8

billion of the first and :> million of the second. "wo, interacting, si?eable populations, happily coe!isting and interbreeding. "hen in year 98, something dramatic happens. In our world of short and long beaked birds, we might imagine two populations side by side, a lot of short beaked birds, a significant, but much smaller number of long beaked ones. "he nutrition from the thin-skinned fruit isn't as good as what the long-beaked birds can eat, hence they live or at least reed, for fewer generations. But then something happens that devastates the population of shortbeak birds* maybe the crop fails that year, maybe it gets contaminated. 0hatever the cause, any short-beaked bird over two years old, dies and the remainder only breed for two years. 0hat happens ne!t is e!traordinary. t the start of the 'crisis', in year 98, there are :== billion of the first variant. "here is still significant growth in the following years, taking the population up to a staggering FL:= M :> by year 89. "hat's F=,=== times as many as there were when the problem first began. But at the same time, the population of the longer lived variant has been increasing faster. By year 8<, there are no offspring that have only the type : characteristics. By the following year, all of the short lived variant have died out. "wo years previously, there were an almost countless number of them. +ow, #ust two generations later, there are none. &or more than >= generations, the two variants lived side by side. 0ithin two, one has completely replaced the other. "he revolution of evolution. It is true that we have made some simplifications, to avoid having to watch the numbers over thousands of generations* the gene or whatever gives the longer life, is dominant, creatures with that gene always breed with those without it, unless there is no choice, a significant change occurs which only impacts the already shorter lived variant. But these simplifications only affect timescales and numbers, not outcomes or process. 3et's think for a moment about some implications* 0e might e!pect some variants, or whole species, to disappear over a surprisingly small number of generations. "his might be true of species that appeared very stable, dominant and growing, right up until the end. Because the transition time between one variant and another is likely to be comparatively short, the number of fossils linking the two variants will be very small in comparison to the numbers to be found of the two individual variants. @In our e!ample, only =.=9H of the total 'fossils' are e!amples of one variant having bred with the otherA

nd of course, this is e!actly what we find in the geological record. Cinosaurs that dominated the landscape for a hundred million years, become e!tinct very fast. &ossils showing the link between variants are very rare. "hese are not evidence against the credibility of evolution, they are precisely what evolutionary theory predict.

A Theological Perspective
The Bible and Creation
In reality, if it weren't for a few verses in Genesis, most Christians would have no problem with evolution, #ust as they have come to have no problem with a sun-centred solar system with a round earth. But dogma has fre,uently stood in the way of ob#ectively viewing science, and many have died down the years for standing up for reason. "he ,uestion is whether the first three chapters of Genesis were ever intended to be understood as a literal, technical account of creation. Is it a 'how-to' guide, or is it a different type of truth2 If there is no absolute need to read it literally, then the problem disappears* evolution and Genesis are then speaking about different things and there can be no conflict. 0hen we look, there is much in these passages to throw doubt on whether they are intended to be understood literally. )!amples would be$ "he two creation accounts in Genesis : and 7 are markedly different in the se,uence of what was created and how. Cespite being the only two people created, by the time dam N )ve have children, there are others of whom Cain is afraid, and people for them to marry.

+ow, there are creative ways of harmonising and e!plaining these discrepancies, but these move us away from a literal reading of the te!t. 1et those who advocate such e!planations simultaneously insist that we read it as literal in order to discredit evolution. I would suggest that Genesis is not the religious e,uivalent of an IO) leaflet PDake sure you have all the parts and tools needed before attempting to build this universe.' I profoundly believe that the Bible is true, but true on its own terms, true to its designed purpose. If we believe that it is true, why not take it at its word2 It says that it is inspired by God and useful for teaching what is right, for convincing when we go wrong, for showing us how to get back on course and for instructing us in how to make right choices. 0hen we use it for that, it does its #ob. But when we try and use it to for something else @to describe scientifically how something happened, to describe historically what happened and whenA then we risk bringing it into disrepute and causing damage to our own faith and that of those for whom we have discredited it. Genesis is filled with truth* books could and have been written about what God reveals of -imself and of us through those early chapters. +one of that re,uires us to bring it into conflict with a scientific understanding of the processes God initiated and nurtured.

The Character of

od

"here is an easy fallacy which argues that a God who can do anything, must do everything. God who can create in 8 days and who causes that to be written, must have done it that way. "ruth must mean factually accurate. 1et the incarnation tells us that God is willing, for the sake of relationship, to give up some of what he can do. .esus does not e!ercise omnipotence, does not know everything, is not everywhere at once. 1et -e is fully God. Doreover, we know what "he %pirit of God is like, because we have described for us the fruit that -e brings. "hese include love, patience and self-control. God is self-controlled, -e is well able to choose not to do things that would be contradictory to -is character, even though -e has the power and right to do them. .esus epitomises that as -e eschews the temptation to come down from the Cross, resisting the desire to e!ercise omnipotence and save -imself. In this knowledge, why should we think that a God who is patient and self-controlled, should do things in si! days when all the evidence suggests it took billions of years2 Is that too long a time for God2 /r is God big enough, eternal enough, patient enough to use processes like the Big Bang and evolution, to accomplish -is ends2 "he observable evidence suggests that the universe is some :9 billion years old. "hat's thirteen thousand million years, from the moment -e initiated creation, until the )arth was ready to support life. "hirteen billion years,

watching, directing, waiting and searching. "hirteen thousand million years en#oying the creation of stars, the coalescing into gala!ies, the e!traordinary patterns emerging. "ime to visit every new born solar-system, investigate every newly-formed planet. "ime to dream of the day when -e would breathe spiritual life into those -e would love for ever. -aving lovingly chosen the planet, having seen life emerge, -e had the patience to wait, to nurture and guide the evolutionary process. -e could have cheated, of course, could have hurried it along or could even have preformed it all. But why2 God has time* there is #oy in the #ourney as well as the destination. God is patient. God is :9 billion years-worth of patience.