Evolution

  I have committed intellectual suicide.

            At least, according to some professors and doctors in Chemistry and Biology and Molecular Genetics and Bill Nye The Science Guy. If I’ve learned anything in the past three years, it’s that the more I know, the less I know I know.

            I'm about to talk about Evolution--a topic charged with emotion and a conversation that so many people come to jaded. But it's a question I am asked so frequently... it's the elephant in the room. How do you reconcile Evolution (and science in general) with your faith? So this is my response, but as a disclaimer, I don't think this issue is very significant to faith relative to other issues--Christians often are able to reconcile Evolution with their trust in the historicity of the Bible and some find reason to believe otherwise. If someone is seeking God, this is the last place I would go in regards to evidence for the existence of God. However, I also think it's very important to be educated so that we are not speaking out of ignorance.

               Anyway, to begin, I am irrevocably biased. I am a Christian so the thought of a Creator comes with the territory. But as I said being a Christian does not so much affect my thoughts on Evolution except to suggest that either the Evolutionary process was guided by an Intellect with a purpose or individual species were created by an Intellect (the latter of the two is what I am more prone to believe). So any argument I might have would not be against Evolution necessarily, but against naturalism being the outside force guiding Evolution.


Hardy-Weinberg

         Here's a quick breakdown of the mechanism of Evolution: there’s this thing called the Hardy-Weinberg Principle, which names five cases in which evolution does not happen in a population:

1.     It’s a large population

2.     There is random mating within the population (also that every member mates and produces the same amount of offspring)

3.     There are no mutations

4.     There is no migration into or out of the population

5.     There is no natural selection

The suggestion is that by violating the Hardy-Weinberg principle in any of these ways, evolution occurs in a population. And while each of these cases could change the genetic makeup of a population, only mutations (#3) are capable of adding to the genetic makeup of an organism in such a way as to make it more complex.

To explain, let’s break this down starting with natural selection. Darwin claimed that natural selection is the driving force of evolution. This means that phenotypes, or physical traits, that help an organism to survive are selected for by causing those specific organisms to make more babies. In short, survival of the fittest.

Yay babies!

Here’s the problem with natural selection: it narrows the gene pool. For example (this is intentionally simplistic for the purpose of understanding), if there is an allele that codes for having opposable thumbs or not having opposable thumbs and the fact that opposable thumbs helps me to be more attractive or to survive longer and better than those non-opposable thumb people, then I will 1. Have a longer time in which to find a mate and 2. More people will want to mate with me and I will pass that trait on to my offspring. Thus, more babies with opposable thumbs! Sometimes, natural selection will just go ham and over time those opposable thumb people will not be physically able to reproduce with non-opposable thumb people. That’s called disruptive evolution and BAM! Ya got two separate species.

So what’s the problem? That sounds like evolution to me…

But see, we started out with both opposable thumbs and non-opposable thumbs. We didn’t form a more complex species, even if opposable thumbers do have a better chance of survival (huzzah for those guys!), all we did was form a more specific species. Natural selection does not put more genetic information into the world, it actually does the opposite.


New Genetic Information

There is a way, though, for genetic information to be produced. That brings us to number three. Mutations! Google’s definition of mutation is “the action or process of mutating,” which is just thoroughly unhelpful.

            Mutation is the only case in the Hardy-Weinberg model that actual creates new genetic information. Even migration of a population into another one does not create new genetic information; it just changes the face of what already existed in the world. So, there exists a mechanism by which evolution may have occurred, but it takes billions of generations of life randomly mutating nearly perfectly to arrive here.

          Until recently, the argument from creation advocates (including myself) has been that there could not be enough time for random point mutations, which are vastly more deleterious than beneficial, to evolve a specie without causing it first to go extinct. While this may be true, this has a tendency to be a straw-man argument because random point mutations where a single protein's function is changed is not where evolutionists believe evolution occurs.

         Recently, we've discovered new nuances in genetics where genetic variation can be produced. Evolution is believed to occur in duplicate parts of the genome that produce two copies of the same genes, leaving one gene free to undergo mutation and one gene intact and functional. So it's not necessarily mutations of individual proteins, but changes in gene expression or gene regulation--which can be easier to change and could affect multiple genes--that would be driving evolution.

         Granted, mutations that occur in these places are still vastly dangerous and rare, but the gist is that saying, "There is not enough time for these mutations to occur before the organism becomes extinct" is not a valid argument. Overall, talking about the adequacy or lack thereof of the theorized mechanism of Evolution on a molecular level is not an argument that can really go anywhere because we don't know exactly how genotype relates to phenotype--the argument is set up on information that we don't even have yet.

The Fossil Record

        There is one way to test if Evolution holds its own as a sufficient explanation for the genetic variation we see in the world: analyzing the fossil record.             

         Darwin, when he was forming his theory of evolution pictured a gradual process that took significant time to evolve from one species to an entirely new species. This makes a lot of sense according to the mechanism proposed through mutations and natural selection. But as he was writing, he was assuming that in the next several years there would a huge uncovering of “missing links” or these kind of in-between species within the fossil record evidencing the gradual changes. He himself said that if these transitional life forms weren't found, then his whole theory kind of fell apart. What we see in the fossil record instead are huge explosions of life with no evolutionary history. These are called "Evolution's big bangs", most notably the Cambrian explosion. 

Punctuated Equilibrium

            In response to the lack of evidence for gradualism in the fossil record, an alternative model called punctuated evolution or punctuated equilibrium was hypothesized. This model suggests that there were long periods of stasis in the historical span of a species with no evolutionary changes interspersed rarely with large bursts of change. The mechanism suggested for this explanation includes a small number of a species being isolated from the larger population and undergoing great environmental stress, thus requiring rapid evolutionary change in order to survive. However, studies suggest that this mechanism moves the isolated population toward extinction rather than evolutionary change.

My Own Thoughts

           So after that long explanation here are my personal thoughts: evidence that disproves evolution does not exist. Proof is a messy word to throw around in both the scientific and the faith fields. Perhaps evolution sufficiently explains what we see in the world, but I think not. I think that the fossil record, and specifically events such as the Cambrian explosion and other rapid appearances of different life forms, the appearance of convergent evolution (where multiple species independently evolve--or perhaps were designed--with morphological features that are very similar or have the same function), and the small probability that mutations randomly propagate complexity point to the existence of a designer. There are good arguments that suggest otherwise and would point to naturalism. But I think it's reasonable and compelling to believe, based on the evidence we have, that an Intellect interfered in the natural order and created life "according to its kind".

          Studies have found that the probability of humans, or a similar species in regards to intellect and/or capability, evolving from single-celled organisms in ten billion years or less (our earth has supplied us only about 3.8 billion years) is anywhere between one in ten to the millionth power and one in ten to the twenty-four millionth power. These probabilities are so close to zero that even if I thought evolution adequately explained the complexity in the world I would still be believing in what could reasonably be called a miracle. Evolution of humanity in and of itself would be miraculous, regardless of whether that is what happened in history or not.

         As a Christian, I think that if someone is involved in a community where the question of Evolution or science is relevant, or if an individual finds him or herself doubting the existence of God because of Evolution, this is an issue that should be diligently sought out. As Christians, we have a responsibility to point out where we see the fingerprints of God's design in culturally relevant ways (and always with gentleness and respect!) but we must be well educated on these subjects. Belief in God requires faith, of course, but my faith is based on evidence and observation, not on shutting off my brain. I think that astronomy, the origin of the Universe, the origin of life, and the anthropic principle hold the best evidences for God's existence, so in conversation, that's where I would go first.

         I have to remind myself always that intellectual barriers to faith are very real and should be addressed when I'm communicating my faith, but the message that Jesus asked us to bring to the world is that we can turn from our sin and brokenness and accept his salvation through faith in order to become citizens of the kingdom of Heaven. Apart from what anyone thinks or understands about Evolution, that must be our utmost truth.

            So, there it is. Have at it, internet.