of evolution
Should Christians subscribe to the theory of evolution?
By ROLAND CHIA
MUCH depends
on what one means by evolution. In his Origin of Species (1859),
Charles Darwin hypothesised that all organisms are related to
a "common ancestry" and arose through a process of mutation
and "natural selection". The latter refers to the process
by which organisms arose and persist by the random processes of
nature.
The organism that is best able to survive and reproduce tended
to produce more offspring, while those that could not survive
simply became extinct. The simplest organism evolved into more
complex ones. Because of its emphasis on "natural selection",
Darwinian evolution does not allow for direct intervention by
God.
That changes and mutations do occur within a particular species
is no longer in dispute. Scientists have described this form of
mutation that takes place on a small scale and usually within
a single population as microevolution.
There are a number of indisputable examples of microevolution.
Studies have shown, for instance, that house sparrows in North
America are larger-bodied in the north than in the south because
of colder temperatures in the north. The mosquito species Wyeomyia
smithii has evolved because of global warming so that slightly
shorter days are required as cue for going dormant. And the enterococci
bacteria have evolved a resistance to several kinds of antibiotics.
The question is: Is there sufficient evidence to show that similar
changes have taken place and are still doing so on a grand scale?
Put differently, does the fact of microevolution imply macroevolution?
I am of the view that there is insufficient evidence to suggest
that it does. Evolutionists of course disagree. As evolutionist
Carl Zimmer has so bluntly put it, "If you accept microevolution,
you get macroevolution for free." But such a claim remains
unproven scientifically.
Small-scale evolution is a fact, but there is no scientific basis
to conclude that it is unbounded. Zimmer suggests that macroevolution
can be extrapolated from microevolution. But the evolution of
bacteria to fish to amphibia to reptiles to mammals requires a
tremendous amount of change. Evolutionary science has not demonstrated
the feasibility of such significant changes. This has led some
evolutionists like Ernst Mayr to admit that large-scale life-patterns
reveal "a richness to evolution unexplained by microevolution".
Perhaps the most radical proposal
of Darwin has to do with the origins of human beings, which was
delineated in a book entitled, The Descent of Man, published in
1871. Without going into the details, evolutionary paleoanthropologists
(paleoanthropology is an intersection of the disciplines of paleontology
and anthropology), following Darwin, postulate the ancestry of
human beings (homo sapiens sapiens) can be traced back from Ramapithecus,
a common ancestor of apes and man. Although fossil records remain
inconclusive, the split, according to this theory, took place
5 to 30 million years ago. But the rub is that human beings share
a common ancestry with apes.
Although most Christians generally reject Darwin's theory of evolution
by natural selection, some (even conservative Christians) are
sympathetic to the idea of evolution. God, they argue, could have
directed the process of evolution at the beginning and worked
within it.
This view, which is sometimes described as theistic evolution,
stresses the uniqueness of human beings by arguing that God intervened
in the evolutionary process and modified some living creature
by giving it a soul. But apart from this special instance, God
generally worked within the natural processes of evolution that
He has put in place. Proponents of this view argue that theistic
evolution is able to embrace the biblical teaching that God is
the Creator without having to reject the scientific theory of
evolution.
But theistic evolution, attractive though it obviously is, has
difficulties with the biblical account of creation. The biblical
account maintains that God brought forth each animal and plant
after it own "kind" (Gen 1:24). Although this statement
is generally understood to refer to "biological species",
the Hebrew min actually refers to a broader category. Hence, although
min could mean "species", there is not enough specificity
to conclude that this is what it in fact means.
It is better translated as "kind" or "type".
This suggests that God could have over a long period of time created
different "kinds" or "types" of creatures.
From the first member of each type, others may have through time
developed.
Unlike theistic evolutionism, which is compelled to accept that
all life begins from simple organisms, progressive creationism
is able to do the biblical account of creation that God created
different kinds of creatures more justice. But more significantly,
progressive creationism is able to uphold the biblical teaching
of the uniqueness of man without having to speculate on the ensoulment
of hominoids when the evolutionary jump is supposedly made from
Ramapithecus to Australopithecus.
The biblical account clearly distinguishes human beings from the
other creatures. The creation of human beings is preceded by a
solemn introduction ("let us make man in our image, after
our likeness"), thereby distinguishing the creation of humans
from God's preceding works. Man's original solitude also shows
that he is not a creature on the same footing with the other animals.
And by "naming" the other animals, man sees what he
"is not", and asserts himself as a unique creature made
in the image of God, which possesses subjectivity, consciousness
and rationality.
Dr Roland Chia is Dean of Postgraduate Studies and Lecturer
in Historical and Systematic Theology at Trinity Theological College.
He worships at the Fairfield Preaching Point in Woodlands.
QUOTE:
'Although most Christians generally reject Darwin's theory
of evolution by natural selection, some (even conservative Christians)
are sympathetic to the idea of evolution. God, they argue, could
have directed the process of evolution at the beginning and worked
within it.'