Evolution, Science and Design
What is evolution?
“I don’t believe in evolution!” a student said.
“Don’t you think that dinosaurs once lived on this earth? Don’t you think that England was once joined to Europe?” I asked.
“Yes, I can accept those things.”
“Then you are an evolutionist as all evolution means is that you accept that changes have occurred both in biological species living on earth and in geographical arrangements. All evolution means is ‘change’.”
Evolution in this sense is a fact. Darwinism is one theory to explain this fact. It is therefore wrong to speak of “Darwinian Evolution” as this is to confuse that fact with a theory that explains it.
When biologists say that biological evolution has been proved by science, they are saying that science gives strong evidence that radical developmental changes have occurred. The confusion comes when people also use the word ‘evolution’ to mean ‘Darwinism’, a theory to explain how all these changes took place through ‘natural selection’. There are however other reasonable theories to explain the observed evolution or increasing complexity of species seen over time.
Some scientists deny the option of any supernatural involvement of God in evolution. They would consider Darwinism is the mechanism by which life has developed on earth, making natural selection of minor changes into a creating forcei. However others scientists who support Darwinism as the probable cause of evolution still believe in a creating God. There are yet other scientists, some of whom are atheists, who do not consider that natural selection can adequately explain the observed fossil or genetic developments. Thus Prof. Richard Goldschmidt a geneticist at the University of California, Berkeley thinks that the gradual accumulation of small mutations can explain microevolution, but is insufficient for macroevolution.
Darwin's ‘Theory of Evolution’ was introduced in the nineteenth century but the idea of evolution is very old. Anaximander was an ancient Greek philosopher who postulated that life developed from non-life and that man descended from animals. Charles Darwin’s contribution was to suggest a mechanism, called "natural selection." Neo-Darwinism is the modern development that natural selection is the means by which minor advantageous genetic mutations might give rise to the development of new species.
Professor Stephen Hawkins has recently suggested that science ‘can explain the universe without the need for a creator’. In his latest book, ‘The Grand Design’ he states,
“Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist.”ii
Clearly this is not a scientific but a speculative statement as it cannot be substantiated by experiment.
God of the Gaps
There has been much confusion in the ‘God of the Gaps’ debate. As science has progressed, some striking features of nature which were considered supernatural, can now be explained. Thus the appearance of a rainbow, lightning and thunder were all extraordinary and in the Bible these are considered to be reasons for people worshipping their creator. Thus the rainbow was to be a sign of the covenant God made with Noah after the flood that “never again will the waters become a flood to destroy all life.” Yet now we know that the rainbow forms because sunlight is refracted and reflected through raindrops and the physics is well understood. Does this mean that the lesson of the rainbow is invalidated? Of course not?
The Bible clearly teaches that God made this universe and every detail of it. He wants us to recognise his hand in creation and live under his authority. When God speaks to Job towards the end of his trials, he is clearly irate at the arrogance of man who wants to be independent of God. God asks this question,
“Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation? Tell me, if you understand.” Job 38:2
He then proceeds to go through various disciplines of science such as cosmology, oceanography, geology, meteorology, astronomy and biology, claiming that he is behind both the creation and sustaining of all of nature. Thus the chapter asks,
“Do you send the lightning bolts on their way? Do they report to you, ‘Here we are’?” Job 38:35
“Who provides food for the raven when its young cry out to God and wander about for lack of food?” Job 38:41
The God of the Bible is in total command of all that occurs in his universe. There is no room for a deist God who established the building blocks of the universe and then let it develop autonomously. The Bible clearly teaches that everything we see around us is designed and permitted by God – even the mosquitoes, tsunamis and earthquakes.
Dennis Alexander and Robert White, both eminent Cambridge scientists, have well summarised the Bible’s view,
“In Christian theology there is no ‘two tier’ universe that one can split into the ‘designed’ portion and the ‘undesigned’ portion. As the psalmist wrote, the whole created order is such as to arouse our awe, wonder and worship, but this is because every aspect of it, without exception, has God as its author.”iii
Miracles
The God of the Bible is however clearly one who occasionally has intervened in his creation in a supernatural, miraculous way. A miracle is not a coincidence, it is when a law of nature has been broken. Dead people do not naturally rise from the dead, human amputees do not regrow their limbs naturally. Although his universe tends to run according to the laws of nature, he is, at times, willing to step in and break those laws. He did so most dramatically through Jesus. Jesus healed miraculously, and he rose from the dead miraculously. God did this to demonstrate who Jesus was. God also performed extraordinary miracles during the time of Elijah and Moses. Genesis chapter one also infers that the creation of the universe was miraculous - God said and it was done.
Has God miraculously intervened in his creation in other ways since the beginning? There are many scientists who consider that there are structures in the universe that defy a naturalistic explanation. They would question how the additional DNA language that distinguishes a human from an ape could have been produced over a relatively short time without a mind composing it? It was primarily the argument of apparent design of the DNA system that convinced Professor Flew, the previously outspoken atheist, that there must be a designing God. How could complex biochemical systems such as that found in the retinal cell of the eye that is able to transform a photon of light into an electric impulse in a nerve axon have developed without a creator? It is easy to parry such questions by saying, “You are using the God of the gaps argument.” Yet it is surely when people ask what is probable that truth is discovered.
There is much evidence to support the historical claim that Jesus rose from the dead. Yet these arguments can similarly be parried by saying that it is their experience that resurrections of men who have been dead for three days just do not happen. Opponents of the resurrection would claim that Christians are again using ‘the God of the gaps’ argument to explain the impossible. Yet to reject the possibility of God being able and willing to intervene miraculously in his world is also a faith position. A God who created this world would clearly be able to intervene at will. He does seem to have chosen to let is run seemingly autonomously, according to the laws of science he has established. However that does not exclude the possibility of either his controlling the apparently natural processes or his miraculous intervention whenever he wants.
There is the danger of trying to see the miraculous in everything. There are people who seem to thrive on searching out the miraculous to bolster their faith. This is most unfortunate as this seems to go against the observed regularity of the scientific world we live in. The Bible’s emphasis is that God has acted supernaturally at specific times in the past, such as through Moses in the escape of the children of Israel from Egypt or through Jesus and his apostles. Another group of miracles would be the extraordinary prophecies about the Messiah given in the Old Testament which are fulfilled in Jesus.
However the other extreme which denies that God has had any miraculous involvement in his creation also seems to go too far.
In ‘Beyond Belief’, Alexander and White, who are both Christians, state,
“If science cannot (currently) explain something very well, then this seems to provide scope for the miraculous. The problem with such an emphasis is that the Bible does not view God’s creative actions as being miraculous.”iv
This seems unwarranted and comes from faith and not evidence. Didn’t Job refer to God’s creation and control of the universe in miraculous terms?
“His wisdom is profound, his power is vast. Who has rested him and come out unscathed? He moves mountains without knowing it and overturns them in his anger. He speaks to the sun and it does not shine; he seals off the light of the stars. He alone stretches out the heavens and treads on the waves of the sea. He is the maker of the Bear and Orion, the Pleiades and the constellations of the south. He performs wonders that cannot be fathomed, miracles that cannot be counted.” Job 9:5-10
This seems to be the direction that Scripture is taking us. We are told that the wonders of the universe should point us to the creator. So to reject the arguments from design, that Scripture uses, is also going too far. Admittedly there are some who claim that the apparent design features in the universe is scientific evidence. Here we come to the distinction between what is rational and what is scientific. Science depends on a theory being validated through repeated experiments. Rationality however is logical deduction and using this process the result clearly depends on the foundational starting points. If one such starting point is that there is no God, then it would be irrational to propose any possibility of the miraculous.
The ‘Anthropic Principle’ says that it is extraordinary that there is a world that man can live on, and that all the physical constants of the physical and chemical world are exactly right for us and our world to exist. The arguments that make up this principle are essentially rational design arguments. The lack of experimental proof does not invalidate these arguments even though they should not be called ‘science’. These arguments can be countered by sceptical scientists who work from different foundations. They can come back and say that this is using the ‘God of the Gaps’ argument again and can put forward the concept of the ‘multiverse’ as a theoretical explanation. Here an infinite number of universes are proposed to explain the statistical unlikelihood that all the physical constants in our universe have been so precisely configured as to allow life. There is no scientific support for this hypothesis but it is rational if the presupposition is that there is no God.
Instincts
Clearly we cannot prove God in a mathematical sense. However there are instincts within all of us that have been placed there to make us wonder at the world around us. The more we understand the details of science, the more we should wonder. It doesn’t matter if we come up with an explanation as to how something may have developed. Just because we understand something about the science of the rainbow or how the peacock’s feathers form, we are still meant to wonder at this creation and worship the creator and sustainer of the universe. Arguments from design are persuasive, as Professor Flew found, and, on Biblical authority, should be used. Just because a mechanism for a process may be discovered surely should not detract from the underlying message that we have a great God who cares for all of his creation.
When the Israelites returned from captivity in Israel, Ezra was very concerned that the people were not following the directions God had taught them in the Bible. He read this to them, day after day, reminding them of the miraculous creation of the world and their miraculous deliverance as a people that should remind them of their Lord.
“You alone are the LORD. You made the heavens, even the highest heavens, and all their starry host, the earth and all that is on it, the seas and all that is in them. You give life to everything, and the multitudes of heaven worship you.
"You are the LORD God, who chose Abram and brought him out of Ur of the Chaldeans and named him Abraham. You found his heart faithful to you, and you made a covenant with him to give to his descendants the land of the Canaanites, Hittites, Amorites, Perizzites, Jebusites and Girgashites. You have kept your promise because you are righteous.
"You saw the suffering of our forefathers in Egypt; you heard their cry at the Red Sea. You sent miraculous signs and wonders against Pharaoh, against all his officials and all the people of his land, for you knew how arrogantly the Egyptians treated them. You made a name for yourself, which remains to this day. You divided the sea before them, so that they passed through it on dry ground, but you hurled their pursuers into the depths, like a stone into mighty waters. By day you led them with a pillar of cloud, and by night with a pillar of fire to give them light on the way they were to take.
"You came down on Mount Sinai; you spoke to them from heaven. You gave them regulations and laws that are just and right, and decrees and commands that are good. You made known to them your holy Sabbath and gave them commands, decrees and laws through your servant Moses. In their hunger you gave them bread from heaven and in their thirst you brought them water from the rock; you told them to go in and take possession of the land you had sworn with uplifted hand to give them.” Nehemiah 9:6-15
It is clear that this is a reminder that they should regard all that has happened, the creation and their deliverance as miraculous. The point of these reminders is to draw people back to God.
"But they, our forefathers, became arrogant and stiff-necked, and did not obey your commands. They refused to listen and failed to remember the miracles you performed among them.” Nehemiah 9:16-17
Alexander and White suggest that the miracles they failed to remember were just those about the deliverance from Egypt. If that is true why did the Levites mention the creation at all? Alexander and White want to limit miracles to supernatural acts that point to salvation,
“Miracles are those special actions of God that play a key role in fulfilling God’s salvation plan for mankind.”v
They reject the idea of anything miraculous in creation,
“Since the whole of creation derives from God’s actions, there is no notion that the created order per se is miraculous, in its origins any more than in its continual existence.”vi
This is perhaps an over-confident faith statement; it is no more based on evidence than alternative views. There are many difficulties in accepting that Neo-Darwinism can adequately explain the evolution of species on a purely scientific basis. Thus Niles Eldredge has emphasised that the fossil record does not support the Darwinian concept of everything gradually changing. He considers that there is largely ‘stasis’ in the fossil record with intermittent sudden developments such as the appearance of the Cambrian Explosion of species and of birds. These must have been associated with massive genetic changes for which modern science has no good explanation. The inherent ability of life forms to reproduce and the presence of sexes are very difficult to explain on Darwinian principles. The origin of life in the primordial soup is also very difficult to explain. It is also hard to find a natural explanation for the creation of new meaningful DNA code as new species appear. In spite of these difficulties, it seems likely that Darwinism can explain some variations in species and even the development of new species. There are so many features that have the appearance of having been designed that it seems inept to say that there is no designer. These problems do suggest that the designer might have been miraculously involved at specific stages in his creation.
This proposition is reasonable but it is a faith position – it cannot be scientifically proved, we cannot perform experiments. Such a proposition is always open to the ‘God of the Gaps’ argument by those who object to the concept of God being involved – but this is also based on a faith argument. This view would propose that the reason we cannot give answers to these difficulties is simply that we do not know enough! This could be an excuse for not wanting to face up to what is more probable.
Science
Science can only be about what is demonstrable by repeated experiment. On this basis ‘Intelligent Design’, though rational, cannot be called ‘scientific’ as it cannot be proved by repeated experiment. However on the same basis ‘Neo-Darwinism’ cannot be called ‘scientific’ as it also cannot be repeated or shown to be the only explanation for the evolutionary record. It can never be proved that God is superfluous to explaining our existence. There are many rational reasons for believing in God and there is much weight behind these arguments but he still cannot be proved or disproved by science which, by definition, has opted to leave out the supernatural in its search for understanding mechanisms. So science must be neutral on the question of God.
Instincts
My instincts tell me that there is beauty and design in the universe. My instincts tell me that there is ‘right and wrong’. My instincts tell me that integrity, courage and honesty are real values. I inherently feel there is a concept called truth. I also know that I have failed repeatedly to live up to the values I espouse. Without there being a creator God it is not possible to rationalise a valid basis for this. The Bible teaches us that these instincts should point us to God who longs to restore the broken relationship man has with him.
BVP
i SJ Gould, “Darwinism and the expansion of evolutionary theory”, Science 23 April 1982:
Vol. 216. no. 4544, pp. 380 - 387
ii Stephen Hawkins, “The Grand Design”
iii Denis Alexander and Robert S. White, “Beyond Belief” Lion, 2004 p 134
iv Denis Alexander and Robert S. White, “Beyond Belief” Lion, 2004 p 134
v Denis Alexander and Robert S. White, “Beyond Belief” Lion, 2004 p 134
vi Denis Alexander and Robert S. White, “Beyond Belief” Lion, 2004 p 134
