The theme that Darwinism is inherently anti-theistic is common on this
reflector. While various intrepretations of evolution science certainly
have religious undertones, it is important to realize that these views
represent different interpretations of the science based on world-view
preconceptions. I see nothing inherently anti-theistic to evolution science.
I do, however, see theistic implications in Darwinism.
The primary tenants of the neo-Darwinian synthesis hold that natural
selection leads to differential reproductive success of individuals within a
population. This, in turn, leads to changes in the Hardy-Weinberg frequency
by which certain genes, which affect reproductive success, are fixed in the
gene pool of the population. The genetic variability which allows a
population some flexibility to respond to new environmental selective
pressures, is believed to arise via "random" mutations.
The antithesitic interpretation is that the above process is random and
without direction, and, therefore, purposeless and designerless. This,
then, eliminates the necessity to invoke a creator. However, is this the
only way in which evolution data can be interpreted?
First, I don't think that it can be easily proven that the genetic
flexibility, referred to as mutation, is entirely random. When examining
"spontaneous" point mutations in a particular DNA sequence (in the absence
of any selection), they certainly appear to arise randomly but this may be a
function of the vast size of genomes which could make reproducible patterns
of mutation hard to find. Simple mutations may occur through a variety of
mechanisms that affect the chemistry of DNA, the fidelity of DNA
replication, or the ability to repair mistakes in replication damage to DNA.
We know that different DNA sequences can demonstrate distinct mutation
rates which could be caused by effects to either the copy or repair
mechanisms. For instance, mutations that arise via environmental factors
that damage DNA (e.g., irradiation, mutagenic chemicals, etc.) occur at a
higher rate in genes that are not expressed due to the differential activity
of the repair mechanism. Other mutations (both small and large in scale)
occur via gene conversion which is a sequence-directed mechanism, hence
changes are induced in certain regions of the genome. Larger changes that
may arise via recombination and insertion of transposable elements may
preferentially occur in certain regions of a chromosome. Thus, I am not
sure how to understand the concept of "random mutation"
More importantly, I do not think that natural selection can be viewed as a
random process. By definition it either positively selects or eliminates
(or both) only certain phenotypes. In either case, the environment that
produces the selective pressure will not allow just ANY random phenotype to
have a reproductive advantage. Only certain phenotypes would enjoy this
opportunity. For similar reasons, natural selection cannot be viewed as
directionless. This process is far from being "random".
Thus, when considering a natural mechanism that could alter the genetic
makeup and phenotype of a population, I have a difficult time envisioning it
as completely "random". Furthermore, when considering the larger picture in
which a hypothetical abiotic soup is eventually replaced by complex
multicellular organisms, the process seems remarkably unidirectional.
Interestingly, even if evolution is viewed in this way, it still says
nothing about purpose or a designer. It seems, therefore, that Darwinists
could simultaneously embrace an atheistic world-view and not demand that
evolution be viewed as completely random and adirectional. Admittedly, such
a position is much less compelling as an atheistic apologetic.
The claim by atheistic Darwinists that evolutionary processes are completely
random and adirectional, is simply one way to interpret how the data fit the
model. Regardless of what Darwinists claim for the model, complete
randomness and purposelessness is NOT a required a priori assumption for
considering gradual evolution. By viewing natural selection as inherently
nonrandom, and by realizing that mutation may not be fully random,
Darwinistic evolution can still be considered as a testable model to explain
origins.
Regardless of the opinions of evolutionists and creationists alike, it is
not necessary to embrace Darwin's theology in order to consider the science
of evolution. Even if Darwin's motivation in formulating the model was to
separate science from theology, it still does not necessarily require one to
accept his theology. The fact that evolution science may be CONSISTENT with
a purposeless world does NOT automatically mean that it is INCONSISTENT with
a creator/designer model. This is a critical distinction that relates to
different world views rather than to whether the science is inherently
anti-theistic.
Even if it originated as an anti-theistic argument, Darwinistic evolution
can properly be viewed as just one interpretation in which the features of
scientific evolution are wedded to certain theological presuppositions. In
other words, Darwinism can be distinguished from evolution science proper by
its theological implications. Therefore, when debating Darwinistic
theology, one should be careful not to confuse the theology with the
science. If it is true that evolution science can stand alone, without the
baggage of Darwinistic theology, then the science can be debated on its own
merits independently of the theology of Darwinism and Creationism.
Conversely, when Christians are rightfully concerned about the theological
implications of Darwinism, these theological implications can be discussed
independently of the science.
Shalom
Steve
____________________________________________________________________________
Steven S. Clark, Ph.D. Phone: (608) 263-9137
Associate Professor FAX: (608) 263-4226
Dept. of Human Oncology and email: ssclark@facstaff.wisc.edu
UW Comprehensive Cancer Ctr
University of Wisconsin "It is the glory of God to conceal a
Madison, WI 53792 matter, but the glory of kings to
search out a matter."
____________________________________________________________________________