What is Evolution?
The first question anyone should ask when the subject of evolution is discussed is "what do you mean by evolution?" Is it something that is observable and repeatable? Is it something akin to dog breeding, microevolution, or speciation and minor variations on pre-existing themes? Is it a purely materialistic process that was not the result of plan or purpose or is it a form of genetic engineering or progressive creation? Is it the gradual unfolding of a predetermined plan (analogous to the development of an adult human over time from a single cell at the moment of conception) or is it a biological creation story based upon the assumptions and beliefs of philosophical naturalists?
Evolution, in the broadest sense, simply means change over time. Automobiles evolve; computer software evolves, and biological organisms evolve. For example, a population of light and dark colored moths can evolve into a population of dark and light colored moths and back again. (As a result, scientists have come to the conclusion that nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of colored moths. But I digress.)
The bottom line is that evolution can mean anything from a series of creation events over time (e.g. the evolution of Microsoft Word to the evolution of the Corvette) to a Darwinian theory of unintelligent design. (If scientists cannot tell the difference between intelligent design and unintelligent design, I'm not sure how either one could be scientific, but I digress again. My bad.)
Is Genesis Compatible with Evolution?
Ultimately, the answer to this question will come down to how we interpret Genesis and how we interpret the scientific data. To err is human so humility is in order.
No matter how anyone interprets Genesis, it is impossible to find mere "change over time" in conflict with the creation accounts. This is true even for those who take Genesis literally. The question is how to take Genesis literally. If the creation of the sun literally occurred on the 4th day, then the days of Genesis are clearly not solar days. Literally.
No matter how anyone interprets Genesis, it is impossible not to credit God with the creation of space-time, energy, and matter in the finite past. Mind preceded matter. And it matters. The universe was not a cosmic accident. It was the result of plan and purpose. As a result, any definition of evolution that conflicts with Genesis obviously cannot be compatible with Genesis.
Is Darwin's theory of evolution compatible with Genesis? Natural selection and the survival of the fittest is certainly compatible with Genesis. If God created particular organisms for a purpose, natural selection could easily be understood as a conservative mechanism to eliminate deleterious mutations from a population. This view, held by many pre-Darwinian biologists, could have formed the basis of a theory of conservation which would also have helped to explain the two key features of natural history: Stasis and sudden appearance. Could natural selection inhibit major evolutionary change from occurring on a gradual step-by-step basis? Even Darwin himself must have thought so. After finishing his Origin of Species he admitted,
"I am well aware that scarcely a single point is discussed in this volume on which facts cannot be adduced, often apparently leading to conclusions directly opposite to those at which I have arrived. A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question, and this cannot possibly be done here." (Introduction to the Origin of Species, 1859)
The real question is not the survival of the fittest, but the arrival of the fittest. If the arrival of the fittest is left to pure chance, it follows that nature itself (through natural selection) must contain sufficient information to eliminate genetic noise while preserving genetic information. But is evoking chance to explain the origin of anything and everything ultimately scientific or does it act as a "god-of-the-gaps" capable of explaining anything? Pierre-Paul Grasse comments:
"Directed by all-powerful selection, chance becomes a sort of providence, which, under the cover of atheism, is not named but which is secretly worshipped."
If nature was the result of a random cosmic accident, then any purely naturalistic story of evolution collapses into pure chance all the way down: explaining nothing by explaining everything while predicting nothing but unpredictability. According to Stephen Jay Gould, if the tape of life's history were to be replayed it would result in a different story: a different natural history. Why should such a theory be considered scientific at all? If I told you that I had a theory that it was unobservable and unrepeatable and that gave me different results every time I ran an experiment, would you question my sanity or politely ask me for the origin of my specious theory?
Is Evolution More Compatible with Atheism or Theism?
Atheism requires a credible "creation account" (depending upon ones credulity) of our existence and why something exists rather than nothing. Assuming naturalism and knowing the tremendous odds against a naturalistic origin of life, it follows that all life must have descended from a common ancestor. Without a creator, new genetic information must ultimately arise by randomly generated variations sorted by a randomly generated filter (natural selection). To borrow a term from an Eastern religion, it's turtles all the way down. To Darwinists, it's chance all the way down. It just happened. (To be fair, Darwinian theory and the struggle to leave more offspring does explain why many people think and act more in accord with their genitals than their brains, but it leaves unanswered why Darwinists tend to leave fewer offspring than theists.)
Ironically, if nature was the result of a purposeful act of creation it is logically possible that it would have the necessary and sufficient laws and initial conditions for life to appear and flourish in the cosmos. Nature would be pre-programmed and evolution would unfold in a scientifically law-like manner. If evolution in this sense is true, it not only gives it a scientific foundation, but allows us to think God's thoughts after Him.
Is Evolution More Compatible with Natural History or Natural Atheology?
The biggest problem with current evolutionary scenarios is not Genesis but natural history as revealed by the fossil evidence. This was true at the time Darwin published his Origin of Species and even more evident today.
The key features of natural history are stasis, sudden appearance, and the fact that - contrary to Darwinian theory - the disparity of the major body plans and higher taxa precedes the diversity of species. There is nothing like a good theory of origins and Darwinism is nothing like a good theory of origins. I'm not sure why anyone would want a theory of unintelligent design to be compatible with Genesis, but that's another matter. Perhaps it's more to do with intellectual pride, peer-pressure, and politics than evidence and reason.
How Does Evolution Point Back to a Moment of Creation?
Biological evolution points back in time to the origin of life which points back to the origin of chemicals which in turn point back to the origin of space-time, energy, and matter, in addition to the natural laws and finely-tuned initial conditions required for a life-permitting universe. Creation preceded evolution. Mind preceded matter.
Nature did not have a natural cause. Biology is contingent upon chemistry which is contingent upon physics which is contingent upon the creation of everything we call natural. Someone of something must have always existed and it's not the universe. What evidence is there that the universe came into existence in the finite past? What evidence is there that the universe has always existed? Weigh the scientific evidence without metaphysical presuppositions and it is most reasonable to conclude that physical reality has not always existed.
Descartes proclaimed, "I think, therefore I am."
God may have responded, "I AM, therefore think."
Even if He didn't, evolution should always be thought of in the greater context of a created cosmos.
Why is Theism a Superior Framework for Studying Origins?
From a theistic perspective it is logically and empirically possible that either:
1. Natural processes may be sufficient to account for the evolution of all life on Earth;
2. Natural processes may be insufficient to account for the evolution of all life on Earth; or
3. Natural processes alone may act so as to inhibit major evolutionary change from occurring.
If, however, we assume atheism or naturalism then we can eliminate all but the first option before we examine any data. Is this the most scientific approach to the question of origins? I think not. A theistic framework gives scientists a much greater range of possibilities to explore nature's history and functionality than atheism ever could. But it can be dangerous to think outside the box. Just remember what Galileo had to face when, as a Christian, he stood up against the heliocentric model of the solar system developed by the secular astronomer, Ptolemy.
Continue the Discussion
Mail your comments to veritas-ucsb@cox.net
The preceding does not necessarily represent the views of the Veritas Forum
or any other character living, deceased, or soon to be deceased.Any resemblance to the writings of Art Battson is likely to be more than coincidental.
Additional quotes and comments may be found at http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/library/origins/quotes/