So after following the Intelligent Design versus Hard Science debate over the past several years, I’m left feeling rather ambivalent about the whole dust-up. I’d like to just say it’s silly, but it’s more than that… it’s also damaging to the practice of our faith as it’s become such a divisive issue among Christians. As a person of faith, I’d obviously like to see more of the secular world consider the possibility that God is responsible for the creation of the Universe and all that’s in it. As someone who loves scientific discovery, I have no problem with the theory of common descent…by all accounts, it does a solid (although quite incomplete) job of explaining how some of the pieces fit together. In fact, to be intellectually honest, the term uncommon descent appears to be a much more accurate term to describe what appears to have taken place.
So where’s the common ground?
As clearly as I can see it, the only real problem arises when ardent neo-Darwinists insist that there’s no room for God in the equation, that life arose through the chance assembly of atoms, and all complex life developed through a rather fantastic series of events that have never been repeated nor witnessed. But there’s more to the problem than the ardent neo-Darwinists. The other half of the problem is with people of faith who insist that origins science is all wrong, that scientists are largely atheists with an anti-God agenda, and that the only acceptable view is their own simplistic and literal reading of Genesis.
The facts of the issue are pretty clear. It’s virtually impossible to dispute the notion that life arose first as single cells and then progressed toward multi-cellular complexity. It's also impossible to ignore the striking gaps in the fossil record, the anomalies that suggest there's something else going on that's well outside the material constraints of neo-Darwinian evolution. Geological, biological and paleontological studies have painted an accurate picture of the progression of life from simple to complex. What these studies haven’t done, however, is explain with anything approaching certainty how single-celled life first arose, or how such a fantastic array of complex, conscious life forms could arise so quickly during the Cambrian period when there’s simply no evidence of earlier complex life forms to show the transition from single-celled life to complex life. In other words, if life arose gradually, where is the fossil evidence? These two issues—the arrival of the first living cells and the subsequent speciation of the planet—are the two hurdles that neo-Darwinism can’t explain through empirical studies. These are the two big holes in the theory, and if they cannot be explained through empirical studies, then any purely naturalistic theory is going to be built upon at least a few assumptions. “Not to worry,” says Science. “It’s pretty obvious that purely natural processes are all we have to work with. We just need more time to discover them.”
Enter Michael Denton, whose 1985 book “Evolution: A Theory in Crisis” rattled more than a few cages. What made Denton’s book so explosive was that he was a scientist himself, a biochemist of note at the University of Otago in New Zealand. In his book, Denton simply pointed out the flaws in current Darwinist theory. His approach was not that of a Creationist. He simply pointed out the flaws and the gaps and then committed the unthinkable… he offered nothing to replace them with!The world of evolutionary science flew into a tizzy and it hasn’t stopped since, even though the major flaws in the theory are no closer to being answered. It should be noted that Denton never attacked the broader theory of common descent. He simply pointed out that existing neo-Darwinist theories that attempt to explain the two problems noted above fall short of their goal. Twenty odd years later, Science is no closer to answering these questions. We still don’t know how the first single-celled life formed, nor do we know how to explain the huge gaps in the fossil record. These issues continue to stare back at us across the eons as vast, unsolved mysteries lurking in the shadows of our past.
Since its publication, Denton's book has continued to inspire the wrath of ardent Darwinists who possess a selective grasp of the facts. Any fair-minded follower of Darwinist thought would have to admit that Denton points out the major failings of the theory with grace and aplomb. Far from laying out a Creationist argument, Denton simply uses science to refute a theory that still lacks the "smoking gun" evidence to support two major tenets. For an evolutionist to state that "evolution is a fact, so get used to it" is to engage in some fact-fudging by omitting the truth that all known evolutionary mechanisms fall far short of explaining the origins of life and subsequent speciation by complex life. Evolution does quite well at explaining small-scale change within the confines of a species, but not how life first arose or later diversified into entirely new life forms. Yes, small-scale “evolution” by natural selection is a fact, but anyone making a broader statement needs to qualify it better. Using the certainty of small-scale evolutionary change to justify making a broader, all-encompassing statement about the "truth" of neo-Darwinist theory as a whole is intellectually dishonest.
Many evolutionists feel that since Natural Selection (micro-evolution) is a fairly well established fact, then it can only follow that the General Theory (macro-evolution) is as well, in spite of the troubling evidence that disputes it. The fact is that Denton, using hard science (most notably the fossil record and molecular biology), has demonstrated how evolutionists are forced to fill in the blanks with conjecture, some intelligent and thoughtful, some outlandish and fanciful. This observation doesn’t sit well with some scientists.
The bottom line is simple... there is far more contradictory evidence against existing theories of macro-evolution than there is supportive evidence for these theories. Any truthful person will examine the evidence and go where it leads them. Anyone who has already bought into "neo-Darwinism at all costs" will never accept it, even if the evidence does not support their point of view that large-scale change can be explained by purely natural mechanisms. For this camp, the idea of rejecting pure Darwinian evolution would mean accepting a belief system that they've already condemned as bunk. Yet Denton doesn't approach this as a Creationist—as I've mentioned, he uses only science to refute theory. Any steps taken beyond that—steps toward a Creationist point of view, for example—are up to the reader.
This book is over twenty years old, and still holds the power to stir the mind. Looking beyond pure science, Denton speaks to our reason and asks us not to be afraid of considering other avenues of thought. This book asks us to stretch our minds, open them to other possibilities. Regardless of your leanings, if you read this book with an open mind, you'll have to admit the validity of Denton's arguments even if you don’t follow or understand biochemistry. Little has been published since to refute him... yet more has been discovered since to support him. Most of the people who dismiss this book like to point to its publication date and write it off as out-of-date or inconsequential. It’s a very flawed argument. Common sense never goes out of date.
So as Christians, how can we resolve this issue? Should we even care? The truth is that it shouldn’t matter one whit because how we choose to understand the unfolding of God's Creation is not a salvation issue. But can we compare God’s topical account with mankind’s temporal account? The answer might surprise you, and I’ll save it for a later post.
In the meantime, I’ll leave you with this great quote about the dogma of neo-Darwinist theory from Lynn Margulis, a brilliant and outspoken biologist who is famous for stating what most evolutionary scientists already know (but won’t say in public): "It is totally wrong. It's wrong like infectious medicine was wrong before Pasteur. It's wrong like phrenology is wrong. Every major tenet of it is wrong.”
Does this mean Ms. Margulis is anti-evolution? Absolutely not. She simply knows that as it stands, neo-Darwinian theory cannot identify a biological mechanism to explain the emergence of early life—and later, highly complex life—in purely natural terms. Darwinists like to think there’s no room for a supernatural Creator in their theory. As a believer in that same supernatural Creator, I’ve come to realize, through studies of both scripture and science, that God has left plenty of room within the Genesis account to believe in "uncommon" descent as long as we continue to recognize Him as the causal agent behind it all.
No comments:
Post a Comment