Science in Christian Perspective
A Micro-Dialogue on Micro-Evolution
Bolton Davidheiser
Richard H. Bube Bolton
Davidheiser
From: JASA 27 (March 1975): 47-48.
The question keeps coming up: Is it proper for a creationist who believes God
made the world in six days to say he believes in
"micro-evolution"?
Changes which can come about through breeding programs, such as increasing the
milk production to cattle, have been called "micro-evolution."
Another kind of example of "micro-evolution" is the case of
the environmentally
related change in the relative population of light and dark moths in England.
The light and dark moths are merely different color phases of the same kinds of
moths, and they are not becoming anything different. In spite of
this, scientists
write of these moths as representing an unusually good illustration
of evolution.
The blue goose and the lesser snow goose were long considered to be different
species, but recently it has been found that they are merely
different color phases
of the same species. But because some environments favor one and
other environments
favor the other, the relationship between them is called evolution.
Although these examples of environmentally related changes are true, they are
not examples of an s kind of evolution. It is as though someone said,
"When
there is lightning Jupiter is throwing thunderbolts." and risen Christians
would say. "It is true that there really is lightning, so it is all right
for us to say we believe in Jupiter." The observed facts called
"microevolution"
are no more evolution than lightning is Jupiter throwing thunderbolts.
Why is there an issue over this matter of "micro-evolution"?
1. The evolutionists must and do assume that
"micro-evolution" is real
evolution. Although it has not been demonstrated that it has any
connection with
real evolution (such as molecule to man, or worms to walrus, or fish to frogs is real evolution did occur there seems to be no alternative but that it came
about through the kinds of changes which are called
"microevolution."
2. "Micro-evolution" is a "brainwashing" term. Because the
phenomena referred to as "microevolution" are factual, some
creationists
say, "We believe in 'micro-evolution.' " The Christian laity gets the
idea that it is all right to accept some evolution. Although this may be clone
innocently, the effect is the same as though done intentionally to deceive. It
is similar to the ease where men say that driving on the freeway is gambling.
Driving on the freeway is not gambling and it dues not lead to real gambling.
Those who say driving on the freeway is gambling are the professional gamblers
and others who expect to profit from gambling.
There is a natural trend for creationists who compromise with
evolution to become
more and more evolutionary in their outlook. This has happened
repeatedly in Christian
schools where compromising with evolution accompanied the trend
toward liberalism
in theology. An instructive illustration of this trend occurred in an
organization
founded by Christian men of science to defend the Bible against the attacks of
non-Christians in the area of science.1 As its leadership began to compromise
with evolution it also vigorously denied that it was dome so. But at
last it went
so far that a prominent spokesman for the group 2 wrote favorably of
the "Christian
evolutionist" in one of his books.3
The matter revolves around accepting or rejecting a definition of
what evolution
is. If someone defines a buzzard as a coffeepot, then it is true that
coffeepots
lay eggs and gorge themselves on rotting flesh. However, discerning people will
endeavor to keep the issue straight and not be deceived, especially when it is
a matter of such importance as evolution.
1 The American Scientific Affiliation.
2 The Editor of the Journal ASA.
3 The Human Quest, Word (1971), p. 184.
Box 22 La Mirada, California 90637
A Christian evolutionist is no more nor less than a person who is committed to
Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, who believes that the biological
theory of organic
evolution is the best currently available scientific description of
the development
of life.
Little is usually served by attempting to use words in a way inconsistent with
commonly accepted usage. As what I take to be an accepted usage of
the term evolution,
I quote trout a draft of a statement prepared by the Science
Committee Curriculum
Development and Supplemental Materials Commission of California:
"The process of change through time is termed evolution .... The concepts which are the basic foundation for this theory are: (I)
that inheritable variations exist among members of a population of
like organisms;
and (2) that differential successful reproduction (i.e., survival) is
occasioned
by the composite of environmental factors impinging generation after generation
upon the population."
Given this universally-accepted definition of evolution, it follows
that the changes
referred to may be minor, easily observable in contemporary experimentation, or
major, postulatable on the basis of geological and paleontological evidence but
by their very nature not directly observable. To call the former
"micro-evolution"
and the latter "macro-evolution" does not commit one to some kind of
philosophical position; one can consistently accept "microevolution"
as self-evident and reject "macro-evolution" as not
sufficiently established,
or even as essentially contradicted by the data. Davidheiser may object to the
use of these terms because of his personal convictions, but his dialogue with
the rest of the scientific world is not going to benefit from time invention of
a private vocabulary.
Such a private vocabulary is evident again when Davidheiser appropriates the
term "creationist" to refer only to those who believe that "God
made the world in six days." I maintain that biblically and historically,
a creationist is one who believes in divine creation: that God
brought forth all
there is in the universe with all time biblical implications that
such a position
entails. Within Davidheiser's private vocabulary system, it is
indeed true that
a "creationist" cannot believe in "micro-evolution," but
what Davidheiser means by this assertion is that since he believes that there
was never any process of evolution, it is is proper to call any
existing process
a process of evolution. If some portion of the world strives to
gather emotional
support for macro-evolution by referring to observable genetic
variation as microevolution, Davidheiser uses the same technique in striving to gather emotional
support against
macro-evolution by referring to creationisms as a belief in a six-day
fiat event.
Is it not better simply to agree on the meaning of words and then
deride whether
or not the positions symbolized deserve support rather than
attempting in either
way to achieve a purely semantic victory?}
In making the statement. "If evolution is true, we are becoming
better,"
Davidheiser is attempting to establish an ethical or theological conclusion as
if it necessarily followed from a biological theory. As a matter of fact, the
biological theory of 'organic evolution can say absolutely nothing
about conditions
such as "better," nor about man's need for a Savior, nor
about the Person
and work of Jesus Christ, Our Lord and Savior. Davidhetser may quote
men who mistakenly
have thought that biological evolution permitted them to generalize
in this philosophical
and non-scientific way, but it should be well established by this time that no
scientific position can provide an ethical foundation by itself,
quite independently
of whether the ethical position being considered is consistent with
or inconsistent
with Christian ethics. Davidheiser does not contribute to the growth
of the maturity
of the Body of Christ by arbitrarily branding those who might be
willing to contemplate
the organic theory of evolution as a description of God's creative
mode of activity,
as though they were in fact deniers of Christ.
Richard H. Bube
Bube desires words to be used in a way consistent with commonly accepted usage.
Reference to any typical college textbook which treats the matter of evolution
will reveal that total evolution from something very simple to all
forms of life
on earth, including human beings, is what is taught. Bube cites a definition of
evolution "universally accepted" which defines the
phenornena of "micro-evolution"
as real evolution. This is exactly what I said: "The
evolutionists must and
do assure that 'micro-evolution' is real evolution."
Bube further says that "one can consistently accept 'micro -evolution' as
self evident and reject 'macro-evolution as not sufficiently
established, or even
as essentially contradicted by the data." This is not the issue.
I emphasize
that the data of so-called "micro-evolution" are factual.
The question
is: Is it really evolution? To this I say NO, it is not any kind of
evolution.
Its attributes my objection to the term as doe to my personal convictions and
accuses me of inventing a "private vocabulary." On the
contrary, I have
treated facts. My personal convictions have nothing to do with it
except to emphasize
the importance of the issue. I use icons the same way that everyone else does
and no private vocabulary is involved.
I am accused of having a private vocabulary again by using the term
"creationist"
''to refer only to those who believe that 'God made the world in six
days.' "
I am doing nothing of the sort. I am merely distinguishing such
creationists from
other kinds of creationists. As far as I am aware, those who consider
themselves
creationists and do not believe God made the world in six days do
not feel they
have a problem with the so-called "micro-evolution" because they are
willing to go along with the evolutionists in accepting it as a part
of creation
through a certain amount of evolution.
Bohr says that according to my private vocabulary system a creationist cannot
believe in "micro-evolution" because there never was a
process of evolution
and so it is improper to call any existing process a process of evolution. What
I said was that it has not been demonstrated that the phenomena of
the so-called
"micro-evolution" have any connection with alleged real
evolution, the
so-called "macro-evolution."
I desire no "semantic victory," as he implies and I said
that "discerning
people will endeavor to keep the issue straight." I am a biologist and not
a theologian and I believe it is not necessary to be a theologian to see that
according to evolutionary theory we did become better, by the commonly-accepted
meaning of the term, as we evolved from the lower animals, in
contrast to having
fallen from a state of perfection in creation. The questions involved related
to redemption are of vital importance. One dues not need to he a
trained theologian
to understand this. In fact, at present in our country the majority of trained
theologians are on the side of the evolutionists!
From a "scientific" point of view the question is whether or not to
accept "micro-evolution" as real evolution in spite of lack
of evidence
for it and because evolutionists with an ax to grind define it as
real evolution.
Bolton Davidheiser