| WARNING: this is about evolution and the Bible. If you're tired of this discussion, you probably don't want to read on. This is the overflow of a thread on a discussion board on facebook, which has a 1000 character limit, and I'm too long-winded for that. READ AT YOUR OWN RISK. I do believe that you can be a follower of Jesus, and believe that macro-evolution was the means which God used to create life on earth as we experience it today. That being said, I do not believe in Evolution, and I don't think I'm a backwards hick for holding this position. In a nutshell, here's why. I split it into two reasons:
1. The "scientific evidence" for a species evolving into another species, or "macro-evolution" (evolution on the large scale) is very weak if even existent. Actually, that's a bit diplomatic. The evidence does not exist. At all. It is a simple fact that there is no scientifically documented case where humans have observed one species evolving into a different species or two different kinds of species, which is essentially what must take place for monkeys to turn into humans or for amoebas to turn into plants, or shrimp, or plants and shrimp. The "evidence" presented in favor of macro-evolution is that we can observe evolution within species, or "micro-evolution," and over insanely long ammounts of time, this results in macro-evolution. There are many documented cases of micro-evolution, it is undisputed scientific fact. For instance, on a remote desert island, in a certain study that I am too lazy to dig up a reference for here, scientists observed a certain species of beetles evolving. This certain species of beetles had wings. But a few beetles were born without wings, and were able to mate and produce young that did not have wings. I don't remember if the no-wings gene was dominant or recessive, (I have a feeling that a defect like that would be recessive...) but in any case, beetles were being born without wings. Now you'd think this would be a big problem for the beetle population, all these gimpy beetles with no wings being born and bringing everybody down. But, because of the environment--a windy desert island, natural selection actually allowed the beetles without wings to survive, because, oddly enough, the beetles with wings were blown into the ocean by the strong wind current and drowned. The beetles without wings on the other hand, were not tempted to fly from tree branch to tree branch, but were forced to walk because of their malady, and because of this, they were not blown into the ocean, their chance for survival actually increased by not having wings, and the population of wingless beetles increased dramatically while the population of winged beetles decreased dramatically. What a fascinating example of evolution within a species! And so counter-intuitive from the way we would think natural selection ought to work. Usually, the bigger, stronger dogs survive while the dogs born with only 2 legs have trouble feeding themselves, much less surviving to adulthood and mating. But in the case with the beetles, the "weakness" was actually beneficial to the species and helped better adapt the beetles to the environment. So, over millions of years, this kind of thing is supposed to turn into evolution on the large scale, where one group of a species of animal eventually becomes so different from another group in that species that the one species actually splits into two species that are no longer compatible with eachother. And based on the definition of a species, this would mean that the two groups were no longer able to mate and produce fertile young. The reason a donkey and a horse are different species is that a mule (the offspring of a horse and a donkey) can not mate with another mule and produce a mule. Mules are sterile. But the fact that horses and donkeys can mate and produce a mule, according to evolutionary theory, suggests a common ancestry. One problem. We've never observed a species of beetles suddenly sprout wings. We've never observed life evolve from less complexity to more complexity through random mutation. We see nature selecting for traits that are a lateral move in complexity, brown dogs survive better in a brown environment, white dogs survive better in a white environment, but never a dog suddenly sprouting wings. (Which by the way, would be totally awesome!) In fact, most of the time, random mutation causes problems. Like Down's syndrome. Down syndrome is a random mutation where the 21st chromosome is duplicated so that every cell in the person's body has 3 of the 21st chromosome instead of the normal 2 chromosomes. This causes moderate to severe mental retardation and loss of motor control. Along with the duplication of the X chromosome, and in some rare cases the 14th or 18th chromosome, these are the only case in which a person can actually survive a duplicate chromosome. In cases of a duplicate of chromosomes 1-13, 15-17, 19, 20, and 22 results in certain death. And those that survive duplicates of 14 and 18 die pretty quick after birth. Unfortunately, this is the way random mutation usually works. By usually, I mean in every documented case. (At least I think I can make that last claim, if someone can produce an exception, by all means, I'm actually quite interested.) And the fossil records don't help. Ever heard of "the missing link?" Well, what people mean by that is that there is a missing link (actually a lot of missing links for a lot of different species) between the original beetle with no wings that evolved into the beetle with wings. If evolution takes place through random mutation, which it kind of has to, then there ought to be a fossil record of all kinds of "intermediate species." As in, there ought to be some sort of fossil record of beetles with half-wings. The thing is, having half-wings would be pretty cumbersome and wierd for that bug, and it probably wouldn't survive. And then you start looking at things like eyeballs. What does an intermediate eyeball look like, and would a creature with an intermediate eyeball be more or less likely to survive? Pretty important question that hasn't been answered satisfactorily. Evolutionary theory, like every theory, whether it be atomic (which I think is a pretty darn good theory!) or quantum physics, has weaknesses. Some people think the only way for evolution to occur through random mutation is for it to "spring forward," like in the movie X-Men. All of the sudden, through random mutation, all these people suddenly get super-powers. Problem is, we've never observed such a phenomenon in any laboratory or field situation. And thinking through what would actually have to happen for a creature with a random mutation to survive the harsh realities of natural selection, I kind of agree. I think the only way evolution could have occurred if it occurred is for the fish with no eyeball to suddenly have a baby fish with an incredible complex appendage that allows it to sense light in a way that it's brain can process into sensory information that we call "vision." Which is why I would say that if you're going to believe in evolution, you have to believe in God, or you have to believe that life on earth has been here for a REALLY long time. The really long time theory agrees with the X-Men-esque idea of a "spring forward" in evolution through random chance. It's the same kind of thinking that if you lock a monkey in a room with a typewriter for long enough he will eventually type up something that looks exactly like Shakespeare's Hamlet in English through random chance. But that monkey's gotta be in there for a really long time to randomly produce something of that complexity. The probability against such a thing actually occurring is astounding, although technically not impossible. That's why age-of-the-earth tests become so important. Problem is, nobody can live long enough to watch an isotope dissentigrate, so we have to make up tests that are accurate "within a few million years," which of course start with the assumption that the earth is a few million years old. Really, there's just no way to know. The most convincing argument I've heard for an old universe is the fact that we can see stars that are millions of light-years away. Stars are so far away, that it takes the light that we perceive as the star millions of years to travel from where the burning ball of gas is to where we are so that our incredibly complex light-sensors (AKA eyes) can detect it. In this way, when we look at stars, we are in a sense, looking back in time at something that might not even be there anymore. The thing is, none of us saw life begin, and we've never seen a species diverge. If we could observe that event taking place, it would without a doubt be one of the most significant scientific discoveries of all time, if not the most significant. The only thing that could top observing one species diverging into two species, and thereby proving once and for all the validity of evolutionary theory, would be to see atoms randomly collide into a living cell. (NOTE: scientist have created proteins from scratch by zapping some chemicals with electricity, but we don't define proteins as technically alive, although proteins are kind of like the building blocks for all biological chemicals. There are also these wierd things called "prions" that are rings of protein, which, although not technically classified as "alive" do reproduce themselves when mixed with other chemicals. The most famous of the prions are the ones that cause Mad Cow Disease. It does seem though, that like viruses, prions need a living thing to "work" from.) Because we can't observe this pretty critical step, in fact, the defining step in macro-evolutionary theory, I don't think it qualifies as "science." It's in the realm of the metaphysical, along with super-string theory. It's conjecture, a model, a theory. Maybe it's a good theory, or the best theory. But I would note that all of the "fruit" from the evolutionary paradigm comes from what we've learned from genetics and micro-evolution that occurs within a species. It's as if in trying to prove this idea of macro-evolution, we accidently discover all this really useful knowledge. I'm pretty open-minded about this stuff. If someone can produce an article about a time when we've observed a species diverging, I'd really love to read it. I would probably change my position. But I'm pretty sure it doesn't exist. The reason it doesn't exist is that theorhetically, evolution occurs slowly over millions of years, too slow for us to notice or observe. I might have a narrow definition of "science," but it seems like in every other field of science, with the exception of this very specific area of biology that claims to give us some answers about philosophical, existential questions, science is usually defined by what is "observable." Except for evolution. And super-string theory. Just nobody really undestands what the people writing about super-string theory are saying just yet, so we can't hold opposing controversial opinions about that. 2. Macro-evolution really screws up my theology. If I belive God created life through evolution, I lose Genesis chapters 1 through 3. I have friends who I think are Christinas who are able to reconcile the two, but I just can't do it. I can't believe that God created through evolution and then at some point, when evolution sprang forward to make the first homo-sapien couple that the Genesis story took place. And I can't, or won't divorce the mythic truth of the story of the fall of man from the historical truth. If I did that for Genesis 1-3, it would be the only exception in the Bible, and I would be making that exception for one of the most difinitive passages of scripture that affects every other passage of scripture and my entire belief system. My explanation for the origin of matter, energy, life, death, sin and suffering, the goodness of humanity, the goodness and power of God, and the hope for redemption in Jesus are all based in that one story of creation and fall. When Paul talks about sin entering the world through one man Adam, and salvation entering the world through one man, Jesus, I can't wrap my head around it without believing in two literal human beings who behaved with concrete actions in actual history. Judaism and Christianity are not just philosophies or religious ideas, or if they are, they have the audacity to claim that these philosophies and religious ideas are grounded in historical events. And that historical claim is really important. In the Nicene creed, Jesus "was crucified by Pontius Pilate" an actual event that took place in actual history. We don't practice a detatched intellectual gnosticism. We follow a real person who really died, really rose from the grave, and really ascended into heaven. He actually speaks to us through the Holy Sprit, and there is a trail of history that binds every Christian from Peter and Mary Magdelene and all the rest of those jokers to every Christian today, and there is a trail of history that binds every human being in a common ancestry to the first man and the first woman. These beliefs are important, and my faith doesn't make sense without them. Jesus really is my only reason for living, and if I'm believing a lie, I might as well quit living. Life is too hard. If that makes me weak and pathetic, so be it. But I've bet all my chips on Jesus, and I, personally, can't make sense of Jesus without Genesis 1-3 being historical. Besides, macro-evolutionary theory is metaphysical. It's faith, based on assumptions. It's just easier for me to make sense of the world by believing that God made the world in 6 days and took a break on the 7th. If He's really an all-powerful God, he can probably handle that. If He can turn water into wine, wine that tastes old, He can make us able to see stars millions of light years away, when he made them just a few thousand years ago, just so we can look at them and enjoy them. I think God gets a kick out of that kind of thing. Why else would he make water into wine if God didn't believe in frivolous joy? He made flowers so darn pretty for crying out loud. What the heck is the point of making flowers pretty? What a Show-off. --Now, back to my original statement. I think you can believe in macro-evolution and be a Christian. That's because I think God's grace is pretty darn big, and there's actually a lot of room for "agree to disagree" within the Kingdom of God before we "know all things." If you read Romans 14 below, I think Paul would back me up. I can have a strong opinion about this, the opposite opinion of many of my brothers and sisters, and we can still be brothers and sisters in Christ, and not enemies. The Evolution hill is not one I'm willing to die on. The resurrection of Jesus Christ is a hill I will die on. But Genesis is not a science text book. Moses, or whoever wrote Genesis down from the oral tradition wasn't working with the categories of knowledge that we assume. They had a different worldview and wrote with a different purpose than we may be reading with. |
