Several years ago, I felt strongly led to research and write a book on the creation-evolution issue. Both God’s Recipes: Evolution and Eternal Life addresses this issue from a point of view that I suspect many fellow Christians, as well as most secularists, would find unorthodox. In it I hope to show how the creation model endorsed by mainstream scientists not only fails as an argument for atheism, but may even have value as an apologetic for the Christian faith. I also hope to show that from the perspective of our transcendent Creator, and in light of all He’s revealed to us through both His written Word and His natural creation, the various creation models may be understood as harmonizing paradoxes rather than as contradictions.
As a stay-at-home mom and former college English major with little natural interest in doing research, I still marvel over how joyfully this extensive project unfolded for me over the past several years. As one who’s always struggled with research and preferred reading and writing fiction, I can only conclude that God called me to research and write upon this topic.
However, I have held back from seeking publication for this book on the advice of many writers’ manuals, which maintain that nonfiction topics must be addressed only by those whose credentials qualify them to write upon such topics. Call this a lack of faith on my part. I am not sure where to go from here, but I still strongly sense that God wishes me to share with others the insights He has given me (so I believe) regarding this issue.
In view of this, I hope you will bear with me as I share what I have been given…employing the question-answer format my church’s Faith, Science, and Reason discussion group onee used to assist me in sharing with them.
How did you start thinking about/becoming interested in this topic?
Though I was never formally taught evolution in a public school setting, I learned about the concept early from my childhood passion for reading about many different species of animals. Descriptions of their origins fascinated me; I felt comforted by the notion that all life forms were related and had a common origin. This gave me a soothing sense of belonging to God’s creation in a way that seemed real to me, and that as a brain different child (finally diagnosed in middle adulthood with Asperger syndrome, or mild autism), I often didn’t feel.
As a teenager, this exciting concept of diversity in unity was reinforced to me through my reading of 1 Corinthians 12, which affirmed to me that I had a special place in God’s spiritual Kingdom as well as in His natural creation.
At college I was assigned to write a paper about Darwin’s faith-science struggles; through researching for this, I learned both that the scientist did believe in God and that his book detailed creation in an order consistent with the creation account in Genesis One. This left an impression on me and predisposed me further to see evolution as a concept consistent with my Christian faith.
I still struggled with the idea that the pre-Fall creation was in any sense violent…until years later when I heard the teachings of physicist-theologian Hugh Ross (author of the book The Creator and the Cosmos, among others) on pre-Fall natural death. Over time I came to relate these teachings to the concept of the spiritually unfallen yet physically imperfect world described in C.S. Lewis’ fantasy Out of the Silent Planet. At about this point I began to see in God’s physical creation a type of spiritual redemption, and an object lesson of how He purposes evil for a greater good.
As a homeschooling mom, I was annoyed by several absurdly unscientific statements I found in some of my daughter’s Christian-based homeschooling texts (monkeys don’t have hands, humans aren’t mammals, etc.), apparently placed there out of the authors’ paranoid fears of endorsing anything remotely resembling evolution. This further fueled my desire to defend what now struck me more than ever as a reasonable yet badly misunderstood scientific theory.
Finally, while taking daily walks I began to receive a series of amazing insights on how specific evolutionary processes parallel specific biblical concepts and tenets of the Christian Gospel. The many parallels in pattern between the two struck me as beautifully uncanny. I sensed God was showing me that He reveals His spiritual truths through His physical creation no less than through His Scripture. I also sensed that the creation model most accepted by mainstream scientists is nothing for us Christians to despise or fear. To the contrary, it may provide us with a valuable apologetic for the Christian faith. Far from appearing to me as atheistic, this model seemed to reveal to me the signature of a loving God! I felt led around this point to pray about, research, and write upon this topic.
Through my research, I reached the conclusion that evolutionary theory is consistent with the concepts of design, miracle, a generally theistic and even a specifically Christian worldview. In addition, within the context of such mysteries as relativity, quantum mechanics, and a ten-dimensional universe, it’s also consistent with the model of direct fiat creation…in a way that serves a paradox rather than a contradiction.
I also grew to realize that my growing passion for this topic (initially baffling for an English major) was rooted in my need, as a person with a developmental disability, to base my self-worth upon God’s love for me and not upon external circumstances (which would include the circumstances of my biological human origins.
Finally, I discovered that the very process most abused for championing strength over weakness (natural selection or “Survival of the Fittest”) in fact affirms the weakest and least likely of God’s creatures, showing us that God, rather than ourselves, is the true Judge of “fitness.”
What general consistencies in pattern do you see between God’s recipe for life (evolution) and nonlife (the Big Bang)?
Both imply a beginning; in both, a big thing emerges from a small thing and many things emerge from one thing (creation is therefore implied in both cases).
How are these patterns consistent with a theistic worldview and with Genesis One creation?
Theistic worldview: Something beginning from nothing and then progressing from a lesser to a greater state implies that something is not God, but rather is created by God. In contrast to both the physical universe and earthly life, God by definition is all great, eternal, and unchanging; He does not progress or evolve. The mere existence of anything implies God’s pre-existence, as absolute nothing can give being to only nothing.
Genesis One: Creation has a beginning and is progressive in nature. The order of creation in Genesis One is confirmed and expressed in both the Big Bang and evolutionary creation models.
How are these patterns inconsistent with both the atheistic and pantheistic worldviews?
Atheism inconsistency: If absolutely nothing pre-existed, absolutely nothing would logically continue to exist. Therefore, neither the Big Bang nor evolution (which are somethings and therefore imply existence) would ever occur.
Pantheism inconsistency: If everything were God, everything by definition would be eternal and unchanging. Therefore, it would have no beginning (as happens according to the Big Bang); nor would it change or progress from a lesser to greater state (as happens according to evolutionary theory).
What parallels in pattern do you see between specific Christian doctrines and specific evolutionary processes? Discuss redemptive analogies.
The Kingdom of Heaven tree growing from a mustard seed of faith compared to origin of all life from a single cell: In both, God creates a large thing from a small thing and/or many things from one thing. Examples of this pattern abound throughout biblical history. Examples of this include the entire human race descending from Adam and Eve and later from Noah; the nation of Israel descending from one man; our Messiah from one nation; one Messiah dying for all; His twelve apostles spreading His Message to all, and so on.
This pattern is also revealed through Jesus’ miracle of multiplying five loaves and two fishes to feed five thousand people from a single boy’s lunch.
God Himself followed the pattern through compressing Himself into a tiny human baby, while remaining at the same time the Creator of the entire universe. Over time He would mature into an adult, finally revealing Himself in all His Divine glory.
In nature, these patterns are paralleled by the wonder of a complex adult human being maturing over time from an original single-celled egg; the common descent of all life forms from a single cell; the whole universe expanding from a single pinpoint density of matter.
Conversion and transmutation: In both, God rescues His chosen creatures from death by speaking them into new creations. In conversion, God’s chosen uniquely God-imaged creatures (humans) are rescued from spiritual death through God changing their spiritual natures to adapt to the Kingdom of Heaven. In transmutation, God’s chosen living creatures (both humans and nonhumans) are rescued from physical death through God changing their physical natures to adapt to a changed physical environment.
Spiritual election and natural selection: In both, God chooses only some of His creatures to rescue from either spiritual or physical death. He is sovereign over whom He chooses in both cases. However, there are paradoxes involved in both.
In spiritual election, there is a paradox between predestination and free will. On the one hand, God who knows everything and can do everything is sovereign over who will receive Him; on the other hand, humans have freedom of choice, and anyone who chooses Him will be received by Him. His choosing us ties in directly with our choosing Him: the two are the same. Though He desires all to come to Him, He does not compel us to want Him, because this would lead to determinism—the absence of freedom. Genuine love involves freedom and choice.
In natural selection, there is a paradox between design and chance. On the one hand, God who knows everything and can do everything is sovereign over who He selects for survival. From His perspective, everything has purpose and is designed. He shows us just enough of His design to confirm to us that He is in control, that the universe is not a meaningless chaos. On the other hand, we limited humans can’t predict all God’s choices; from our perspective, many events appear to occur by chance. If all natural events were predictable to us, this would result in a mechanical “clockwork universe” that denied us a sense of God’s holy mystery. In keeping God’s ways a partial mystery to us, chance no less than design shows us that God, not ourselves, is ultimately in control.
In both God’s spiritual and physical recipes for life, there is a paradox of God purposing evil for a greater good. This paradox further reconciles chance and design. For example, when a baby is conceived through rape, we do not accept the rape itself as God’s will; this act is always inherently evil and abominable to God. At the same time, however, we believers view the baby so conceived as no meaningless accident—but rather as a God-imaged human being who’s been planned and purposed by Him from before time’s beginning.
I believe this paradox can be extended to events in prehistory: the environmental catrastrophes and mass extinctions occurring back then were not God’s will, but the new creations He spoke into being through those devastations were and are planned and purposed by Him from before time’s beginning. God is sovereign over all events, potential as well as actual. Were creation rewound and a whole different set of catastrophes to occur, themselves followed by a whole different set of species evolving that were adapted to a different set of changed environments, we would need not view this as implying God’s absence of purpose or design. God transcends chance from our human perspective; to Him, all the “might-have-beens” are as real and known as the “things-that-are.” He can purpose any possible event for His greater good.
A word must be said here about my own theology of the Fall: I don’t believe that all physical death and destruction resulted from the Fall of Adam and Eve (as Young Earth creationists would claim), nor that such death or destruction constitutes irredeemable evil. At the same time, I don’t believe that this death and destruction were designed by God or should be viewed as inherently good (as some progressive creationists seem to assert).
It’s my personal conviction that pre-Fall catastrophes were ultimately caused by Satan’s attempts to physically destroy the pre-Fall earth. Since he clearly fell from heaven at some point in time before he entered the Garden of Eden and tempted Eve, we can suppose his rebellious and evil nature at this time and his desire to destroy God’s creation. The fact that God’s creation was not destroyed, but rather brought forth radical new speciation following every catastrophe, affirms to me that God purposed this intended evil for His greater good: He purposed death for new life and destruction for new creation. Herein lies the “very good” nature of God’s creation, which I believe was redemptive from the very beginning.
When it comes to God purposing evil for His greater good, the ultimate example of this paradox lies in the Crucifixion. From our human perspective, this was the most evil act ever committed in human history—the wilful murder of God Himself by His own jealous and hate-filled human creatures. We are not to be honored for having participated in our Creator’s murder. At the same time, from God’s perspective this was the most loving act ever committed by our Creator—His choosing to become the sacrifice for our sins and redeeming us from death for all eternity.
The Body of Christ and biodiversity: In both God’s spiritual and physical recipes for life, He selects a wide variety of creatures for survival. His choices in both cases show us that God likes Different! This principle is shown spiritually in the biblical book of 1 Corinthians 12, which talks about the many different gifts among believers who are all led by the same Spirit and represent many different parts of the same Body of Christ. In nature, this principle is shown through the role played by species variation in the process of natural selection. If all creatures were selected for the same traits, they would all remain the same and would not evolve.
God’s way of doing evolution runs counter to that of humans who have tried historically to “do evolution” through human-made social systems. Both Nazism and Communism select humans for sameness, demanding that they conform to a certain social ideal. Nature, on the other hand, selects for diversity. Its very randomness (to our limited human perspective) ensures us that we can’t predict which creatures will be selected based upon their outward designs or observable traits. In a similar way, we humans can’t predict which among us will receive Christ based upon our outward traits. In both nature and the Kingdom of Heaven, God often chooses the least likely of His creatures for both physical and spiritual redemption.
“Survival of the Meekest”: God’s least likely creatures, selected in both His spiritual and physical recipes for life. The principles of the “Upside Down Kingdom” (God’s tendency to more often choose the poor, the outcasts, the criminals, the disabled, etc. to enter His Kingdom before the wealthy, advantaged, socially acceptable, etc.) is a well-known biblical principle, illustrated in the teachings and parables of Jesus.
What fewer people seem to realize is that God also reveals this pattern within His physical creation…through the very process that is more commonly known as “Survival of the Fittest.” Darwin’s most precise definition for “fitness” was a species’ ability to produce many offspring and a large population of its kind. Ironically, this trait is more prevalent in those species that are small, brainless, defenseless, non-aggressive, etc…all traits counter to those we more commonly associate with “fitness.” (Examples: earthworms, amoebas, plant-eaters over meat-eaters, etc.)
The very prevalence of the least likely among nature’s survivors, and our human inability to predict survival based upon a species’ observable traits, shows me that the Creator, rather than His creation, is the ultimate Judge of “fitness.”
This pattern in nature also shows me that God’s rescue of His chosen or selected species is based upon His mercy and not upon their (our) own creaturely efforts. In this sense it parallels the teaching of Ephesians 2:8,9: “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this not from yourselves; it is a gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast.” Essentially, the process of natural selection reflects allegorically the central tenet of the Christian Gospel!
Spiritual warfare and the biotic struggle for existence: In both God’s spiritual and physical recipes for life, death and pain and struggle serve as catalysts for rebirth or greater growth. While tragedies drive some people away from God and into spiritual darkness, they also serve to drive others straight into His arms and to strengthen their faith and trust in Him. In a similar way, while catastrophes in nature result in mass extinctions, they also in some cases fuel the genetic mutations that lead to new life and new creation.
In both cases, stagnation would lead only to eventual extinction…whether spiritual or physical. In the spiritual realm, it is those believers under great persecution who seem to grow spiritually strong—while believers in pampered environments tend to weaken spiritually and become worldly or apathetic. In the natural realm, new species evolve in the face of selective pressure or environmental catastrophe. During times of stasis, species tend to stay pretty much the same.
In both cases, however, God is the only rightful Judge of who is to live or die. When we try to use evil means to justify good ends, we invariably make a mess of things—because we’re both limited and sinful by nature. Purposing evil for good is God’s job alone—for He alone knows all things and can fully predict outcomes. Our role as humans is to follow Jesus’ teachings and to simply do good in the face of evil.
End times and prehistoric times: In both time periods, we see a common pattern of God rescuing a chosen remnant from a major catastrophe by speaking these chosen ones into new creations. In prehistory, this occurred as a cycle of major physical devastations out from which God spoke new life forms into being: the process evolutionists call punctuated equilibrium and progressive creationists simply call new creation. In the future end times, the ultimate catastrophe, called the Great Tribulation, will prove both physical and spiritual in nature. From this final devastation, God will speak His chosen creatures into new creations in both the physical and spiritual sense. This final act will end the cycle for all eternity.
In all cases, it is only the Creator, not the creation, who can and will speak us creatures out from death and destruction into new life and creation. We are never to strive to become God, but rather to die to ourselves and be reborn in Him. The distinction between Creator and creation will always remain, but it is only in our accepting this state that we can know true happiness.
How do the patterns differ regarding God’s spiritual and physical recipes for life?
The primary difference between God’s spiritual and physical recipes for life is that the first involves creatures who are uniquely designed to engage in a conscious relationship with their Creator and to be accountable to Him—to have freedom to either follow or reject Him. The second involves all creatures, including all those species which are given no choice and no accountability. The first recipe redeems us humans spiritually from our sin. Humans uniquely chose to rebel against God and became sinful; we therefore among all creatures uniquely require spiritual redemption, which God Himself provided for us by becoming one of us and offering Himself as a sacrifice on our behalf. Nonhuman species don’t require such intervention; as spiritually non-accountable beings, they are sinless and require only rescue from physical death.
I do believe that nonhumans have a spiritual dimension and a place in the next life, but in their case it is one that returns them straight to their Creator. I also believe that nonhumans have a genuine capacity to love, but in them this harmonizes with their biological instincts and reflects the immanent nature of our Creator. In humans, the capacity to love involves freedom and choice; it therefore transcends biological instincts and reflects the transcendent nature of our Creator.
How is evolutionary theory like fiat creation? How are both models consistent with Genesis One creation?
Both the evolutionary and fiat creation models agree with Genesis One in that they imply a beginning, as opposed to belief in an eternal, ongoing universe. Both show creation progressing over time from a simpler to a more complex state, rather than remaining constant and unchanging. Both models assert that life was originally given being from nonlife, a process that is specifically recounted in both Genesis One and Two. The progressive order of creation (water, plants, sea creatures, land creatures, humans) as detailed by mainstream scientists is consistent with the order recounted in Genesis One.
The evolutionary model inescapably implies Divine creation, because it assumes the initial giving being of something from absolutely nothing (the Big Bang), an event logically possible only of one supposes the pre-existence of a Cause outside the universe itself. The progressive nature of evolution also implies a Cause outside the creation itself, because a creation that was self-determining would by definition be all-complete and would have no need to evolve.
At the same time, the fiat creation model inescapably implies a form of radical macroevolution, because it claims that life was created from nonlife (soil or the land). It also accepts microevolution (slight modifications occurring within species) because this process is humanly testable and observable. One might say that the fiat creationist actually accepts evolution at both its extreme ends (radical and very fast, slight and very slow). For this reason, it strikes me as no breach of logic to accept evolutionary processes as also occurring at intermediate rates or degrees.
How can one reconcile the special creation of humans recounted in Genesis Two with the evolutionary creation model?
Though the two models at first look like apparent contradictions (Genesis Two creation also looks like a contradiction to Genesis One creation, though clearly it cannot be), I believe they can be reconciled into harmonizing paradoxes. Furthermore, one can do this without resorting to a merely allegorical interpretation of the Genesis events. For several theological reasons, I do believe that God intends for us to interpret all Genesis events literally as well as allegorically—including the special creations of Adam from the soil and Eve straight from his side.
How can one tie this in with an acceptance of evolutionary processes?
I can envision this in several possible ways. The first is to understand the Garden of Eden as an earthly yet transdimensional paradise—a special habitat God created uniquely for Adam and Eve. For several reasons, I don’t believe that Eden was either a description of the entire pre-Fall earth or simply a natural location on the earth. I believe it was a specific place specially God-created on the earth, yet one distinct from the rest of earth perhaps even in the sense of occupying different dimensions of space and time. The transdimensional events occurring within its boundaries (Eve’s special creation from Adam’s side, the serpent’s entry to tempt her, etc.) would differ from those natural events occurring outside its boundaries.
Because Adam was created outside Eden, and because the length of Genesis “days” can be literally interpreted according to more than one timescale, I can accept the possibility that Adam was born of natural, biologically human parents (whose origins would be as described in most scientific texts). There is some scientific evidence for biological humans pre-existing Adam and Eve. However, when God “breathed into his nostrils the breath of life” (Genesis 2:7b), at this point Adam became a being different and unique in his spirit from all other living creatures, including his fellow biological humans. He became God-conscious and accountable, able to choose between good and evil.
In this state Adam was placed within the Garden of Eden. Within this Garden, God created Eve from Adam’s side (a form of modified cloning). She would fully share in both his natural biological history and his new transdimensional spiritual state. Through the line of Noah, we modern humans are all descended from Adam and Eve—a fact which has been confirmed scientifically.
At the same time Adam was descended biologically from earlier life forms, might he have also been created straight from soil?
I believe the answer to this is yes. That all life forms, including humans, have our ultimate origins in stardust has been confirmed scientifically. Relativity theory also shows that the universe was created according to more than one timescale. One can easily envision a rapid timescale scene as the creation of complex life straight from soil, in a way that would look like direct fiat creation—while in a slower timescale scene, the intermediary steps between soil and complex life would look more like macroevolution.
An alternate possibility? The evidences for rapid catastrophes in prehistory followed by rapid explosions of new life suggest a form of creative change so radical that it may have manifested at least in some cases as a literal emergence of new and complex life forms straight from soil. This is the accepted view of progressive creationists. I am open to this model, with one difference: For several reasons, I don’t believe the new creations to be completely unrelated to earlier species.
Scientific support for common descent lies in not only common DNA, but also in the evidences for some transitional species and for modern species still possessing the gene sites for traits in earlier species. Theological support seems to lie in the fact that God speaks us into new spiritual creations rather than simply replacing us with more righteous individuals. It seems reasonable to me that God would use a parallel pattern in His creation of physical life. Also, the Scriptures speak of our literal end times transmutation from physical to transdimensional beings (see 1 Corinthians 15:51,52).
Can God create life through simultaneously using more than one timescale and/or creation model?
Yes, I believe He can—for the simple reason that He is God and can do everything. As the Creator of all things, including all space-time dimensions, He transcends all dimensions—including the four (height, width, length, and time) in which we earthly creatures move. Therefore He can and does do things that strike us limited humans as illogical or impossible—things that we view as contradictions, yet which from God’s perspective emerge as harmonizing paradoxes.
Such events would include God’s miracles, His being fully God and human at the same time, His being Three in One at the same time, and so on. Because of this, it also strikes me as reasonable that our transcendent Creator would likely create life according to more than one timescale and/or creation model at the same time.
Scientists have confirmed that the universe was created using ten space-time dimensions—six more than those in which we earthly creatures commonly move. Transdimensional and therefore paradoxical events are therefore reasonable from a scientific standpoint. Through the theory of relativity, scientists have also confirmed that several different timescales co-exist.
If, according to different timescales, the universe were created in both six twenty-four-hour days (from God’s perspective) and over fourteen billion years (from our perspective), then it seems to me reasonable that the creation of life according to the first timescale may appear as direct fiat creation, while the creation of life according to the second timescale may appear as processes of macroevolution.
Discuss laws and miracles. How is evolutionary theory consistent with the Christian acceptance of miracles? Of intelligent design?
By their nature, evolutionary processes introduce novelty and creativity of a sort that we humans can’t predict. The element of chance involved in natural selection and the indeterminate nature of the resulting variations shows us that these processes are not deterministic. We cannot know or predict everything there is to know or predict about them. Therefore, these processes leave us with a sense of God’s holy mystery; in this respect, they share a property in common with miracles, which also introduce novelty in ways that we humans can’t predict or fully understand. No less than miraculous processes, evolutionary processes produce changes that by nature are positive and creative; they are not mere chance agents of destruction.
While evolutionary processes are commonly defined as “natural,” the fact is inescapable that all natural processes in themselves reduce ultimately to a science-accepted event that can only be understood as a miracle. This event is what we call the Big Bang: the giving being of something (our universe, which includes all space, time, matter, and dimensionality) out from absolutely nothing. In this sense, all natural processes can be finally understood as also being irreducibly miraculous processes.
At the same time, evolutionary processes are guided by natural laws that protect them from total anarchy or chaos. While chance is present, it is not exclusive or all-encompassing in these processes. For example, the DNA upon which chance variations act is itself comprised of an orderly code—the same four bases used for every living species. Variations also repeat themselves in nature, showing a degree of order and pattern. In these respects, such processes also reflect God’s intelligent design.
How is the balance between “fixed laws” and “random variations” in evolutionary theory consistent with a theistic, Christian worldview? How is the evolutionary creation model, like the theistic worldview, inconsistent with both determinism and anarchy? And how does this balance show us that God is personal and loving?
By definition, the evolutionary creation model involves both “fixed laws” and “random variations.” When these two properties are combined, they create a balance in nature that reflects the balance of God’s loving character. The presence of fixed laws in the recipe cancels out total chaos or blind chance, which would be the work of a heartless anarchist; at the same time, the presence of random variations in the recipe cancels out hard determinism, which would be the work of a rigid and legalistic dictator or a loveless “Clockwork Mechanic.” Our Creator is neither a loveless dictator nor a heartless anarchist. Rather, He’s a just and compassionate Ruler whose law, order, and design perfectly balance His freedom, novelty, and creativity.
Discuss resurrection in light of both the evolutionary and fiat creation models. Might the very concept fo resurrection serve as a bridge between the two?
In discussing the end times bodily resurrection of believers, two Scriptural concepts are used that suggest that this event will have both fiat creationist and evolutionary properties. In 1 Corinthians 15: 52, we read: “…the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed.” The first part of this verse describes a bodily emergence from soil (by nature akin to fiat creation), while the second part describes a form of bodily transmutation (by nature akin to macroevolution).
In discussing our spiritual rebirth as new believers, this duality of pattern is again seen in Scripture. A form of spiritual transmutation is suggested by 1 Corinthians 5:7: “Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come.” At the same time, a form of spiritual resurrection from death is suggested by Romans 6:8: “Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with Him.”
Given that God wishes to reveal for us His nature through His physical creation no less than through His written word, I would suppose that His methods for creating life in prehistory (speaking us into new physical life) would in some sense parallel the patterns He uses both in our present (speaking us into new spiritual life) and in our future (speaking us into both new spiritual and physical life).
I would therefore expect to see this same duality of pattern occurring in God’s original creation. The transmutation of species, or macroevolution, reflects one aspect of this duality; the calling forth of new life straight from soil, or direct fiat creation, reflects the other aspect of this duality. Therefore it strikes me as reasonable that God might well have used both creation methods at the same time.
What evidences we have for God’s methods of creating life seem to lend equal support to both the fiat creationist and evolutionary creation models. Support for fiat creation can be found in the evidences for several rapid speciations having followed several mass extinctions in prehistory. Support for macroevolution can be found in the evidences for common DNA, gene sites for earlier species existing in modern species, and the presence of fossil evidences for at least some, if not many, transitional forms of life.
When one combines the concept of fiat creation straight from soil (which itself would contain the DNA of earlier life forms) with the concept of macroevolution (a process which in itself inescapably has its ultimate origins in stardust), one sees an overall pattern that seems at least generally akin to resurrection.
This is not to deny that differences exist between between what might have occurred in prehistory and what will happen in our future. While future bodily resurrection will transform us into transdimensional beings and assure us eternal life in this state, the past process involved changes that left us physical, four-dimensional beings still subject to physical death. The past processes also involved the transmutation of entire species, while our human future resurrection will involve the transmutation of individuals. And of course we must acknowledge Jesus’ specific bodily Resurrection as an event unique in all history.
At the same time, I’m convinced that in the general sense, all of creation bears the signature of its Creator. For this reason, we should expect to see many common parallels in pattern throughout creation, including patterns that harmonize with the patterns of God’s recipes for spiritual life.