Thinking About Evolution: 25 questions Christians want answered
By AJ Roberts, Fuz Rana, Sue Dykes, and Mark Perez
The multidisciplinary team of authors brings clarity on exactly what evolution is, and what it is not. They examine which aspects of evolution are on sound footing, and where there are legitimate grounds to be skeptical of the evolutionary paradigm. With expertise in molecular biology, biochemistry, paleoanthropology, Christian apologetics, and analytical philosophy, they present a creation model view of interpreting the evidence, comparing and contrasting the scope and explanatory power of this model to current evolutionary models of the origin and development of life on the earth.
I appreciate that the book starts out with a clear definition of Old-Earth Creationism (OEC), sometimes called Progressive Creationism, as clarity is always valuable and helps to head off misunderstandings and straw man arguments. Reasons to Believe's (RTB) insistence on harmony between Creation and Scripture, or Science and Faith, is biblical and warranted. It reflects the Creator's character and his revelation to humanity.
The book includes enough detail on the various subjects to highlight the salient issues at play. The authors appear to be fair in their evaluation of the strengths and weaknesses of the various topics. While they are overall skeptical of the ability of evolution to account for the full diversity and history of life on Earth, they provide balanced expert analysis based on their research experience and training.
The authors put forth a very important observation: that data, and even science itself, explains nothing, but that it is scientists who explain things! These explanations are based on interpretations of the evidence, prior knowledge and observations, worldviews and presuppositions, and even the nature of reality. While facts are things that are true, it may not always be possible to demonstrate with certainty that something is true, even if it is. Theories and scientific paradigms are put forward by scientists to explain the data and are meant to be tested. However, it is a dangerous thing to protect certain ideas from being challenged freely (e.g. the modern Theory of Evolution), even if widely accepted. There is a trend in our society to silence dissent instead of promoting open discussion and not tolerate disagreement.
Another takeaway from the book was that it is critical to define terms like "evolution", "information", or "transitional forms." For instance, there are several different kinds of naturalistic evolution, each with different levels of empirical support and each based on differing levels of inference. These include chemical evolution, microevolution, microbial evolution, speciation, and macroevolution. It is a mistake to conflate the different definitions and then make blanket statements about the truth or falsehood of the subject.
The question/answer format is very useful, as it encourages its use as a reference for those seeking thoughtful answers. It lends itself readily for small group discussions, as well. While each topic could easily take up several chapters, the pertinent content is provided, objections are addressed, and references are included for further study.
A valuable side panel in the book discussed different types of reasoning. These include deductive, inductive, abductive, and defeasible reasoning, and the levels of certainty that we can get from each type. The latter two types may not be as familiar. Abductive reasoning, also known as inference to the best explanation, is often used by researchers or detectives during investigations. Defeasible reasoning, or belief revision, is used to amend conclusions, models, explanations, or beliefs when new evidence is given.
The authors make the point that while most scientists today accept evolution, they still have disagreements over the underlying mechanisms proposed. In this context, they provide an interesting quote by Thomas Huxley, “In matters of the intellect do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable." Huxley disagreed strongly with Darwin on the mechanisms, but still supported the concepts.
One important question asked in the book, "Is such bulldogged tenacity in clinging to evolution due to the science or to something else?" I think it is fair to conclude that philosophical naturalism and other worldview considerations are at play. Science has limits and is not the sole source of truth, so we must integrate experiences, philosophy, and reason, with scientific studies, to get a comprehensive perspective on reality. Truth is what corresponds to reality!
So, is evolution compatible with Christianity? The authors conclude "No!" For example, they ask, "If evolutionary mechanisms can explain everything in biology, what role would there have been for a Creator to play?" They question that if we were created by unguided, naturalistic processes, then in what way are we special or distinct from other animals? What purpose is there to life if we are the products of mindless processes? In what way can we justify the dignity and worth of the individual humans? Giving up a historical Adam and Eve as the first humans, directly created by God, seems to be too high a theological price and undermines many core Christian doctrines.
This quote gets to the heart of the authors' perspective, "To claim as Crick once did that nature was not designed but rather evolved asserts a belief, not a fact. Those who repeat an assertion of apparent-but-not-real design do not know whether the assertion is true or not. They are not better scientists than those who claim design; they are worse philosophers." The appearance of design in biological systems is overwhelmingly obvious, so why must there actually be no teleology or design, and hence a Designer? The authors believe it is not only justified and rational to believe in a Designer, but that such a conclusion is actually the best explanation of the data.
In contrast, I found it very interesting (and surprising) that in the extended evolutionary synthesis (EES) there is currently serious discussion of agency being involved in the process. Agency implies teleology or design. They are suggesting that since natural selection alone appears to be insufficient to drive the observed changes, that somehow the cell actually acts as an agent in preserving changes that could be useful in the future! This is provocative to say the least.
This book is thought provoking and a great overview of the current state of evolutionary theory. I commend it to anyone who has struggled with integrating their faith with current scientific discoveries. It is not, and never has been, an either or proposition!
Thinking About Evolution - Publisher Site
