ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel

Dr. Ben Carson's Views on Evolution and the Big Bang

Updated on November 13, 2015
Asa2141 profile image

Asa is an autodidactic Christian apologist. He currently lives in Idaho with his family.


Dr. Ben Carson on the Big Bang

With so much talk swirling around presidential candidate Dr. Ben Carson and his views on evolution and the Big Bang, it seems that few people actually know what he believes. The retired neurosurgeon makes his beliefs clear, however, in his best-selling book "Take the Risk". Here are the retired neurosurgeon's views on evolution and creation in his own words...

Dr. Carson begins chapter 10 by telling the story of a keynote address he delivered at a National Science Teachers Convention in Philidelphia. The topic for his address was "evolution versus creationism". He talks about how much mankind has discovered about the "mind-boggling vastness and impeccable order" of the universe.

Naturally we ask how this came about. Some scientists believe it all just happened as the result of a big bang that launched everything, setting our earth spinning on its axis, at just the right speed, at precisely the right distance from the sun so it wouldn’t be incinerated, yet close enough not to freeze, with other planets in their orbits and other galaxies positioned perfectly to keep harmful rays from destroying our planet and us. I told my audience, “I just don’t have enough faith to believe all that happened by random chance.” (pg. 159)

Mr. Carson continues by pointing out that the Big Bang theory is in conflict with the second law of thermodynamics which states that everything naturally moves toward a state of disorder, not order.

...the Big Bang theory rests on the belief that after all this stuff around us (matter) just happened to come out of nowhere in a giant explosion, instead of spreading and growing more disorganized, somehow it assembled and organized itself into an awe-inspiring pattern of planets and orbits and solar systems and stars and galaxies that reach to infinity and move in a celestial choreography that is at once beautifully mysterious and mathematically predictable. How does that jibe with the second law of thermodynamics? I’ve talked to Nobel Prize-winning physicists who spout hypotheses that amount to nothing more than a bunch of astrophysical mumbo-jumbo before eventually admitting, “Well, we’re still learning. There’s a lot we don’t understand.” (pg.159-160)

Carson concludes by saying that he has yet to find anyone who can give him a convincing explaination and that the Big Bang theory is taken on a lot of faith.

"I just don't have enough faith to believe all of that happened by random chance."

Dr. Ben Carson speaks at the 2015 CPAC.
Dr. Ben Carson speaks at the 2015 CPAC. | Source

Dr. Ben Carson on Evolution

Then the neurosurgeon switches gears from talking about the Big Bang to evolution. He points out that "Darwin built his entire theory of evolution on the premise that the cell is the simplest, foundational building block of life", then points out the error of this premise because of what we have discovered through electron microscopes and other tools that make it clear how incredibly complex the so-called "simple" cell is.

Dr. Carson continues by saying:

But let’s just concede that somehow, mysteriously, the first cell came about. Where did the great diversity of other cells come from? Darwinism holds that all life evolved in a gradual, progressive, step-by-step process from the simple to the more complex. So how did the earlier, simpler, single cells all get together to form more complex multicelled organisms? (pg. 160)

The eminent scientist then gives us a detailed description of the complexity of a single eye - a part of the nervous system he is well acquainted with - and asks:

Did each type of cell develop on its own and then sit around and wait for a couple of billion years in the hope that some perfectly compatible cell type might come along to finally make it not merely relevant but indispensable as part of an elaborate system that itself complements even more complex systems that are in turn part of the larger organism? How does that jibe with the “survival of the fittest” premise, in which FUNCTION is a key factor in deciding what genetically useful characteristics are passed on and ultimately which organisms last another generation? Are we then to believe that specialized cells survived for millions of years, fit for no real purpose, until other specialized and completely worthless and unfit cells came along, which also survived for untold eons, to one day combine with them in anticipation of filling some future need that would take millions of more generations and evolutionary steps? (pg. 161)

The neurosurgeon concludes by saying, "Believing that the origin of life can be explained by Darwinian evolution requires more faith than I have."

I find it as hard to accept the claims of evolution as it is to think that a hurricane blowing through a junkyard could somehow assemble a fully equipped and flight-ready 747. You could blow a billion hurricanes through a trillion junkyards over infinite periods of time, and I don’t think you’d get one aerodynamic wing, let alone an entire jumbo jet complete with complex connections for a jet-propulsion system, a radar system, a fuel-injection system, an exhaust system, a ventilation system, control systems, electronic systems, plus backup systems for all of those, and so much more. There’s simply not enough time in eternity for that to happen. Which is why not one of us has ever doubted that a 747, by its very existence, gives convincing evidence of someone’s intelligent design. (pg. 162)

"I find it as hard to accept the claims of evolution as it is to think that a hurricane blowing through a junkyard could somehow assemble a fully equipped and flight-ready 747. You could blow a billion hurricanes through a trillion junkyards over infinite periods of time, and I don’t think you’d get one aerodynamic wing, let alone an entire jumbo jet..."

Dr. Ben Carson at the Souther Republican Leadership Conference
Dr. Ben Carson at the Souther Republican Leadership Conference | Source

Ben Carson draws it all together by saying:

So what are we to make of the human body and the human brain, which are immeasurably more complex, more versatile, more amazing in a gazillion ways than any airplane man has ever created? Aren’t they even stronger evidence of intelligent design? That, I told those science teachers, is why evolution requires more faith than I can muster. (pg. 162)

Mr. Carson explains why he is a creationist:

On the other hand, I told them, if we consider the possibility of a Creator, it’s really fairly simple to believe and understand how such a complex, intelligently designed universe could come into existence. In fact, it’s easy to imagine an intelligent designer making creatures with an impressive ability to survive by adapting to their environment. (pg.162-163)

Mr. Carson also gives a little history on Darwin and how he came by his theory during his time at the Galapagos Islands. He addresses the finches example, which many evolutionists bring up as clear evidence for evolution.

When he sees some finches with thick beaks compared to all the other finches in the world, Darwin looks for some sort of an explanation. It turns out there had been several years of severe drought in the Galapagos resulting in a shortage of usual food for the finches. Consequently, the only finches to survive were the ones with thick beaks strong enough to crack open the hardest of seeds to ingest enough nourishment to survive and breed. Very shortly the only finches left on the drought-stricken islands were thick-billed finches and their offspring who inherited that valuable trait.

Darwin termed the phenomenon “survival of the fittest,” which he argued could explain life’s diversity no longer as impressive evidence of the existence of a powerful and creative God, but as the predictable result of the more rational and scientific process of “natural selection.” He then extrapolated his finch findings to make natural selection a cornerstone of a broader evolutionary theory by which he could explain the origin of life, man, and the universe without having to further credit or consider the existence of a creator God.

In Darwin’s paradigm, the adaptability of the finches was a clear sign of natural (that is, godless) selection and thus strong evidence for evolution. But in another paradigm, it could be a sign of a wise and intelligent Creator who gave his creatures the ability to adapt so that every environmental change that came along wouldn’t wipe them out. It comes down to which paradigm you are willing to accept. (pg. 163)

Carson conlcudes by saying that both paradigms -creation or evolution - take faith.

But Mr. Carson is not finished. He then addresses the problem of evolution with the fossil record.

For me, the plausibility of evolution is further strained by Darwin’s assertion that within fifty to one hundred years of his time, scientists would become geologically sophisticated enough to find the fossil remains of the entire evolutionary tree in an unequivocal step-by-step progression of life from amoeba to man—including all of the intermediate species.

Of course that was 150 years ago, and there is still no such evidence. It’s just not there. But when you bring that up to the proponents of Darwinism, the best explanation they can come up with is “Well … uh … it’s lost!” Here again I find it requires too much faith for me to believe that explanation given all the fossils we have found without any fossilized evidence of the direct, step-by-step evolutionary progression from simple to complex organisms or from one species to another species. Shrugging and saying, “Well, it was mysteriously lost, and we’ll probably never find it,” doesn’t seem like a particularly satisfying, objective, or scientific response. (pg. 164)

Mr. Carson finishes by pointing out the erroneous argument that creationists cannot be good scientists - an argument often used by evolutionists.

"But what’s even harder for me to swallow is how so many people who can’t explain it are still willing to claim that evolution is not theory but fact, at the same time insisting anyone who wants to consider or discuss creationism as a possibility cannot be a real scientist."

At the end of his speech, he got a standing ovation from some 15,000 teachers and school administrators. Many people came up to him afterwards or wrote him later telling him how much they appreciated his speech.

Would You Vote for Ben Carson if He Got the Republican Nomination?

See results

Ben Carson on Evolution - "The View" ABC

Joy Behar of "The View" says she is impressed that Dr. Carson is a neurosurgeon but cannot believe that a scientist does not believe in evolution.


    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • tsadjatko profile image

      TSAD 20 months ago from maybe (the guy or girl) next door

      Thank you Ben Carson for telling it like it is! the truth is evolution is not even a legitimate scientific theory!

      Where Evolution Falls Short

      Two problems prevent anyone from legitimately calling evolution a theory. First, there’s no direct, observable experiment that can ever be performed. Scientists can measure bones, study mutations, decode DNA, and notice similarities in morphology (the form and structure of animals and plants), but they can never test evolutionary events in the past.

      Some point to natural selection as a form of “evolution in action,” but natural selection can only act upon the genetic potential that already exists. What we do observe from natural selection fits perfectly with a recent creation and does not point to common descent.

      Secondly, and related to the above, evolution misses the mark as a theory because all the supposed “tests” to confirm Darwinism do not necessarily and distinctively correspond to the idea. In other words, each has an alternate and equally viable explanation. A theory requires that the confirming experiments correspond to one specific hypothesis. Otherwise, the experiment cannot establish legitimacy. Evolution has no such legitimacy.

    Click to Rate This Article