Christianity & Evolution
I’ve been thinking quite a lot about the theory of evolution; the facts and logic behind it all…and have been trying to reconcile that with my faith. Here’s my conclusion:
Question: There’re lotsa evidence that points towards the evolution of human kind yes? How does one reconcile that with one’s faith??
Evolution is important as it challenges the belief that the world is the handiwork of a Creator. This is why Christianity, among other religions like Islam, Judaism; takes offence to claims of evolution.
Many cite fossil as evidence that the theory of evolution is sound. However such evidence often boils down to how scientists define the word evolution. The first thing we must learn to do is to distinguish microevolution from macroevolution.
Microevolution is the variation within a type. For example, on the Galapagos Islands in the Pacific, finches exhibit shifts in the size and shape of their beaks in response to environmental conditions. Over several generations the beaks of finches have changed shape, and that shape depends on whether longer or shorter beaks are better for food gathering. This is generally known as Natural Selection.
Macroevolution on the other hand, is a process that supposedly creates innovations such as new complex organs or new body parts. Phillip Johnson in his book Defeating Darwinism argued that ‘macroevolution is just microevolution continued over a very long time’. This assumes that given a long enough period of time, an organism would morph into a more complex organism capable of undertaking more sophisticated processes – just like how mankind originated from a single cell as simple as that of an amoeba.
The problem is that plenty of experiments have shown this to be false; small changes do not accumulate to make large changes. All we have seen are simply modifications of existing categories of life and not the rise of new categories. In fact, Colson explains that the “variations induced by breeding does not continue at a steady rate through each generation. Instead, it is rapid at first and then levels off”. Moreover, this ‘chain’ is not seen in the world today.
We have seen how some fishes featured Blue Planet gradually lose their eyes cuz they don’t need them…we have studied how moneys in different geographical locations have differing lengths of tails to suit their feeding habits. But what we have not seen is a blurring of the boundaries to suggest macroevolution. At the end of the day, a fish still morphs into a fish and the monkey into a monkey. There is a lack of that ‘missing link’ to support the theory.
On the topic of fossil evidence unearthed of late, I agree that it does show life forms very different from what it is today. The woolly mammoth is an example. But the thing is, these strange forms still fall within the basic categories that we have today. The mammoth clearly belongs to the “mammal – elephant” category and no one claims otherwise.
On that point, Mudskippers have been touted as the missing link between water and land creatures. But it resembles and behaves like a fish aint it? And there is no proof that there are more sophisticated mudskippers around yes? In addition, it would make no sense that the ‘older’ version is still around while the ‘newer’ version has died out. This goes against the very essence of evolution and natural selection.
You see, the theory sounds logical. But it isn’t. Unless the gaps between categories like reptile and mammal, land and sea creatures can be found; the theory remains theory.
References:
Colson, C. (2006) Tough Questions about God, Faith, and Life. Tyndale House Publishers,:38-40
Fearn, N. (2005) The Latest Answers to the Oldest Questions: A Philosophical Adventure with the World’s Greatest Thinkers. Atlantic Books.
Loh, M. (2008) Evolution and Christianity. Melisa’s Brain Publishers.
