This is Part I iteration 2 of my pamphlet argument. I wish to thank the
members of the reflector for their helpful comments. Special thanks for
the contributions of Del Ratzsch.
"Evolution All Aroud Us"
Summary of the Argument:
Evolutionists often argue that evolution is true because we can see
the process of evolution occurring every day. Selection processes (natural
and artificial) can be seen to cause:
-Bacteria to become resistant to antibiotics.
-The body color of moth populations in regions with pollution
problems to go from light ot dark.
-The size and shape of the beaks of finches to change on islands
where given populations are isolated from a parent population.
-The average number of bristles to change in a fruit fly population.
-The predominance of traits favorable to man in domesticated animals.
- and many others
Problems:
The problem with this argument is that it is difficult to conceive
of how God could have created a world which did not contain evidence of this
kind of evolution. In his textbook **Evolution** Mark Ridley points out that
evolution by natural selection can occur if a biological population has the
following four properties:
1. Creatures reproduce.
2. Creatures inherit physical characteristics.
3. Physical Characteristics vary from parent to offspring.
4. Physical characteristics effect the survivability of creature.
This means that in order to make evolution impossible, God would have to do
one of the following:
1. Make creatures that cannot reproduce.
2. Make physical characteristics non-hereditary.
3. Make children identical to parents.
4. Eliminate death.
5. Make the process of dying unrelated to physical characteristics.
6. Eliminate mutation.
7. Not allow mutation to effect hereditary characteristics.
So if God's plan for creation required that none of these 7 criteria
be violated, then evolution by natural selection is possible and would be
expected to occur under the appropriate environmental conditions. Why is
this important? Because it is not rational to argue against design theory
on the basis of "micro" evolutionary evidence if "micro" evolutionary evidence
can be easily accomodated by the theory. Consider the following analogy:
When Einstein proposed his theory of gravity, he noted that it made
a number of predictions concerning natural events. Among these:
1. Apples would fall to the ground with an acceleration G when
dropped under normal lab conditions.
2. Space is curved due to gravitation.
When he compared this theory to the existing theory (that of Newton),
he found that some of the expectations were identical. Newton's
theory of gravity, for example, predicted (among other things):
1. Apples would fall to the ground with an acceleration G when
dropped under normal lab conditions.
2. Space is not effected by gravity.
So when Einstein discussed possible tests of his theory he did not
include dropping an apple under laboratory conditions. Why not?
Because this test wouldn't have meant anything. Both theories
predicted that apples would fall to the floor under laboratory
conditions so there is no way this experiment could have said anything
about which theory best fit the facts. Instead, Einstein proposed
experiments that might be able to tell whether or not space was curved
due to the influence of gravity. Such an experiment was performed in
1919 and Einstein's theory was validated.
Another reason that "micro" evolution is not convincing evidence of
evolution is the limited nature of the change that has been observed. Fruit
flies get more bristles, but they are still identifiable as fruit flies.
Dogs are bred that have more hair or stubbier tails, but they are still dogs.
Moth populations change color, but they are still moths. Some observations
with dogs and finches even suggest that "micro" evolution reverses itself
once the force driving the evolution disappears.
It goes without saying, on the other hand, that some formulations of
intelligent design theory can be falsified by "micro" evolutionary evidence.
Any design theory that maintained the immutability of species, for example,
has been falsified by the evidence of "micro" evolution discovered by
scientists. Does this falsify a Biblically based intelligent design theory?
This is a theological question that depends on the meaning of the Hebrew
word translated as "kind" in modern English versions of the Bible. Suffice
it to say that Hebrew nouns are notorious for their flexibility of usage
and that the Biblical "kind" need not refer to any of the arbitrary levels
of classification employed by taxonomists.
Conclusion:
"Micro" evolutionary processes result in small changes that have
sometimes been observed to disappear when the environemntal conditions driving
the evolution change. Furthermore, evidence of "micro" evolution does not
contradict a theory of intelligent design unless the designer is supposed to
have created a world that did not meet the four criteria listed above; it is
difficult to conceive how "micro" evolutionary evidence would not to be there
otherwise. Given these two considerations, the evidence of evolution occurring
all around us is not strong, much less conclusive, evidence for the proposition
that all life descended from a common ancestor by natural processes.
In Christ,
robert van de water
associate researcher
UCLA