Interpreting Evolution
If you would, open your Bible to Genesis 1 and start reading. Sketch (or let's be realistic, imagine) a picture of the world it describes. If you follow the text, you should find familiar images of the land and water, the plants, animals and stars. You’ll find a mention of a firmament (vv. 6-7), a kind of stretched out sheet that forms a dome with the sun and moon set in it (vv. 14-18.) There is water above this dome as well as under the ground. Add it all to your picture. When you’re finished, you should see something like the following images (click them to find their original sites):
These diagrams suggest that on a literal reading, the world according to Genesis does not match the way we understand the world today. We know the moon, stars, and sun are not beneath the clouds. There are not literal pillars of the earth nor an underworld within the dirt and rock beneath our feet. Read for its “plain meaning,” Genesis does not describe a world that many people would accept as literally correct. Even later biblical authors do not align with this picture (Prov.16:15, Is.5:6, Jer.10:13, Job 36:27-9). Moreover, Genesis is not the only meaningful account of creation in the Bible, some align pretty well but some differ (Psalm 8, Psalm 136, Prov.8:22-29, Isaiah 51:9-11).The denial of scientific truth is not to say that there is no truth in Genesis 1 and 2. It is a modern bias for science and literal meanings that guide an expectation that the Bible be scientifically accurate. Instead, many Christians and scholars have come to recognize the truth of Scripture, oftentimes because of the help of science. For example, the theory of evolution is very strongly supported and so helps us navigate toward the truth of God’s creation and what God might be telling us in Genesis. But before we get to the theology, let’s just consider the science of evolution and its alternatives in this post to see what exactly the options are when we talk about God’s creation of the world.
The Evidence
Eastern Orthodox Christian and evolutionary biologist Theodosius Dobzhansky wrote an essay in 1973 entitled "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution." This is the general consensus about evolution in mainstream science, not only does it make sense itself, it makes everything else in biology make sense. Key lines of evidence in support of evolution include the physical forms and structures of creatures and their similarities; the fossil record which shows the gradual progression of increasingly complex organisms over time along with intermediate species; the predictive consequences of biogeography (think of the unique biodiversity of Australia, for example); and the testable similarities and differences in genetics which allow scientists to predict evolutionary families and test whether they have specific adaptations in specific genetic locations or not. This evidence takes a bit of explaining, so if your head’s spinning, let us aim you at this (admittedly pro-evolution) explanation of the above paragraph: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3GagfbA2vo.
From this evidence unfolds a theory of evolution most defined by the concept of natural selection, which could be summarized by the following four points:
There is genetic variation among individuals in a population.
A species is a group whose members can reproduce fertile offspring together and is successful if its members continue to be able to reproduce with one another.
Organisms of a species and within an environment must compete for resources.
The offspring with the most favorable characteristics of survival survive and pass on their genetic characteristics.
These are the tenets of natural selection which result in adaptations of species. When a population is separated, their respectively accumulating adaptations can produce new species that are not able to breed together anymore. The changes continue over vast amounts of time and environmental changes to yield the diversity of life evident today. It occurs by a variety of patterns, sometimes in gradualism (slow change), sometimes in punctuated equilibrium (rapid spurts), and sometimes in response to different circumstances like genetic drift (caused by a decrease in genetic variation, like when a population size is decreased or a small portion migrates to form a new colony), gene flow (caused by migration between populations), or changes in the environment, among other factors. However, the main driver of evolutionary change are random genetic mutations.
Darwin built his theory on the work of other scientists being done at the time. Linnaeus had developed a taxonomy of every species reproducing by its own kind, Malthus developed the Principle of Population stating that the struggle for limited resources limits reproduction, Smith looked to fossils to correlate events and ages across land and raised important questions about the record, and Hutton developed the the theory of uniformitatrianism which uses geological features to show that natural processes of the past matched the timing and progression of natural processes today. Perhaps most importantly, Jean-Baptiste Lamarck proffered the leading theory of the day of the inheritance of acquired characteristics, a theory similar to Darwin’s own except in that Lamarck posited that individuals could evolve purposefully and pass their cultivated traits onto their offspring, whereas Darwin emphasized that it is not individuals but populations as a whole which evolve.
Despite the impressive groundwork laid for his theories, the most conclusive evidence would lie in the future discovery of genetics. When Darwin first published in 1859, he and most of the world were unaware of the work being done by Gregor Mendel, a monk whose name you might recognize from having studied punnett squares in biology in high school. Mendel studied genetics, using peas no less. When Mendel’s work was discovered in the 1930s and 40s and paired with Darwin’s work, in what was called “the new synthesis,” evolution emerged clearly as the leading explanation in biology. When the structure of DNA was discovered in the 1960s, genetics seemed to definitively rule in Darwin’s favor with random genetic mutations to explain variations within individuals in a population.
Even with all this theory and evidence, however, scientists do still disagree about the particulars of the mechanisms involved in the evolutionary process and debate different interpretations of the data as more is discovered, so it may be more accurate to talk about biological theories of evolution rather than the theory of evolution. Two of the more prominent issues that scholars debate is whether the process is repeatable or not with the same results (convergent or divergent) or whether we might emphasize the role of self-organizing organisms more dominantly. Differences aside, the overwhelming majority of scientist do accept evolution as an important explanation of creation and one with promise of continuing discovery.
Young Earth Creationism
Of course, evidence is not proof, and it is possible that one could interpret the evidence differently. Many Christian scientists, rejecting the creation of God’s image bearers by random genetic mutations and natural selection in favor of a more literalistic reading of the Bible, have offered such ways in many varieties--we’ll cover just a few of the main ones here.
Young Earth Creationism (YEC) has roots in the work of scholars in the 1600s who used the Bible to chart the age of the earth (one scholar’s estimation of the age of the Earth (6000 years) even made it into the King James as a footnote!) This theory was addressed then when On The Origin of Species was first published, but modern scholars like Whitcomb and Morris, authors of The Genesis Flood in 1961, draw on such work to argue again that the Bible shows conclusively that the earth is only thousands rather than billions of years old (meaning that humans have been around since just about the beginning), that sin is the cause of death (not a natural part of creation), and that Noah’s flood did occur and explains much of present geology and the fossil record. They push back against geologist James Hutton’s work mentioned above, published almost 60 years before Darwin’s On The Origin of Species, which shows through geological formations that physical processes have remained constant through time. Whitman and Morris oppose this theory, arguing that “The principle of uniformity in present processes is both scientific and Scriptural (Gen. 8:22), but comes into conflict with Biblical revelation when utilized to deny the possibility of past or future miraculous suspension or alteration of those processes by their Creator” (n.1, p.xx). Essentially, they claim much like Ken Ham does in the video linked on last week’s post that we can’t know for sure what natural processes and conditions were like in the past. So Young Earth Creationists appeal to science, miracle, the limitation of the human mind, and the supreme authority of the Bible to contest evolution.
At first glance, this may seem fair enough. The Bible is the Word of God, and we know that to err of human, so why discount God from working however God wanted? The reasons come from everything we’ve discussed in previous posts about faith and reason, about a God who wants us to be able to know Him, the fruits of science, and the nature of Scripture. We will get into the theological reasons scholars suggest Young Earth Creationism is flawed, but here, we’ll focus on the scientific reasons. YEC arguments from science (i.e. the laws of thermodynamics, geology, common mitochondrial ancestors) do not stand up to scrutiny. As discussed last week, the Flood poses numerous issues as the explanation of the earth’s geology (even St. Augustine is said to have recognized that in the 300s), the specific arguments and their refutations are too many to delve into here, but there are two overarching fundamental reasons why they have not been found substantial support by mainstream science: YEC does not offer testable hypotheses for creation and it predetermines what qualifies as true evidence because only the evidence that supports a particular interpretation of the Bible is accepted. The wisdom of God is vastly more dependable than the wisdom of humans, yes, but for that reason, we seek the wisdom of God as revealed in both God’s Word, in nature, and in history in order to combat the fallibility of human assumptions and errors. Again, we will talk more about church tradition and theology regarding evolution in the next post.
Intelligent Design
Intelligent Design is a theory that holds significant popularity as an alternative to evolution. Whereas some look at Darwin’s theory of evolution and see the “survival of the fittest,” a phrase coined by an advocate of Darwin’s, Herbert Spencer, or “nature red in tooth and claw,” like poet Alfred Lord Tennyson, Intelligent Design theorists like William Dembski or Michael Behe focus on the wonder of nature that could only have been created by God. The concept they develop is called irreducible complexity, a description of the complex features that are so well formed and suited to an organism that they must have been specifically designed by the Creator. In this view, mechanisms like the eye are so intricate, they could not have simply developed gradually over time because there is no advantage to any rudimentary form of the mechanism or function to the mechanism without its entirety. Hence, it is irreducibly complex. Such an interpretation does away with much of the randomness involved in the process of evolution and demands a Creator God be directly involved in a process that cannot be explained by natural means alone.
The scientific problems with Intelligent Design are much the same as the problems of creationism. The theory appeals to miracle and divine intervention but does not offer any scientific hypothesis of how God might have worked to make these irreducibly complex organisms: it’s not a scientific alternative, just a disagreement. What’s more, the examples of irreducible complexity, like the ear, have been shown by scholars to be explainable by evolution. Simple cells that are more sensitive to light give an organism, like a fish, an advantage over members of their population that cannot sense light at all. Through eventual genetic mutations, the readaptation of mechanisms for other purposes, “irreducibly complex” features are shown to be able to develop gradually over time. (We’d like to point you to another video that discusses this very thing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qrKZBh8BL_U) Another point against Intelligent Design for us is that it pits science and theology in conflict with one another in one of those “God of the Gaps” situations that we’ve discussed before, not to mention “errors” in design that people might criticize.
Metaphorical Matching
Other theories of creation match the Genesis text metaphorically to scientific details to prove the scientific integrity of the text, proof of divine inspiration for scientific precepts beyond the authors’ time. The general thought is that the order of creation described in Genesis, with the sea and dry land appearing first, followed by plants, sea creatures, land animals and then finally humans, matches the pattern described by modern theories of biological evolution. Andrew Parker does this in his book The Genesis Enigma as he pairs occurrences from Genesis (the creation of light, the formation of land, lights to divide day and night) to occurrences from the timeline of biological evolution (the formation of the sun, the separation of land areas, the first image-forming eye). The merits of this kind of approach are debatable, beginning with the question of whether all the details really match up (some argue they don’t, especially considering that other descriptions of creation in the Bible mention different details, like in Isaiah 51:8-9 the myth of defeating the dragon Rahab). While it may be beneficial to draw metaphors from the text to find theological principles, “proving” God through this kind of metaphorical matching sets God up to be disproved when science makes further discoveries and it rings hollow when metaphors are manipulated to say whatever new thing is needed.
Conclusion
So where are we left? First, there is of course much more depth to the evidence and arguments presented here. Evolution is complex as are its alternatives. Their respective defenders are intelligent, diligent people with thoughtful, sophisticated points. After all, most of this evidence are things beyond the common person’s access/comprehension--I don’t always know what I’m looking at when I look at a fossil. Someone has to interpret it for me and I have to choose which interpretation to trust. And to be fair, there are several significant theological concerns that drive Christian alternatives to evolution, particularly concerning Adam and Eve. These questions are good and push us to investigate what is scientifically true; we will take a look at these next week. But that being said, it is somewhat hypocritical to accept the scholarship of science and the technological world that we depend on daily and simultaneously reject the bits that we don’t like or understand. It’s a tense divide between what we know now and what we will know in the future. But we must be careful not to create a pseudo-science that does injustice both to the Biblical text and to science-- as we saw, a scientifically accurate interpretation of Genesis 1 is fundamentally questionable starting with a sketch of the world it describes.
