Christian Evolutionism
in Apologetics
At the outset, I must acknowledge that the Theory of Evolution
(macro-evolution as envisioned by Charles Darwin) does nothing to disprove the
existence of God. Most would argue that
it does not disprove Christianity. The
Catholic Church, in fact, has said that Catholics have the freedom to believe
in it, provided they acknowledge God as the Creator, the direct creation of our
souls by God, and certain truths about our first parents (among the other
principles of the Faith).
Given all that, I was unsure about
whether to even write this post. And it
is understandable why many apologists don’t bother touching on evolution. Trent Horn, in his book Answering Atheism, recounts a debate between theists and atheists
on a college campus at which he noticed that the atheist literature was
exclusively about evolution.
Given that evolutionism essentially
misses the point, and is frequently used to advance straw man arguments, isn’t
discussing it playing into our opponents’ hands? Most of the time, it probably is.
However, there is one pet peeve of
mine (of which Mr. Horn is guilty despite the quality of his book) that I do
think is a mistake. That is the
uncritical acceptance of evolution within arguments for theism. Modern apologists apply the highest standards
of scientific rigor to our arguments supporting the existence of God. We want no stone left unturned in order to
display beyond any doubt where the evidence leads.
When it comes to evolution, however,
there are often no critical standards applied at all. Again, I understand the reasoning. It does us no good to get bogged down over
theories that are essentially irrelevant to our purposes. And given the success atheist professors have
had turning young people away from faith using evolutionism, it would seem that
taking the sword out of our enemy’s hand would be quite wise.
My only concern is this: by setting
such a standard (or really a lack of standards), we are giving uncritical
credibility to a belief system that hasn’t earned it.
This is why, despite the theological
differences I may have with him, I appreciate the recent documentary by Ray
Comfort, Evolution vs. God. In it, he asks professors at top universities
for one piece of observable evidence for Darwinian macro-evolution, and he gets
none. There are a few examples of
micro-evolution, such as certain fish, or Darwin’s finches. Horn gives the impressive example of bacteria
that have developed the ability to metabolize harsh acids. (It is important to note that though this ability
was designed over 50,000 generations of bacteria by the intelligence of
scientist Richard Lenski, the bacteria never began to become anything other
than bacteria.)
All of these examples show
adaptability, and impressive foresight in creation. These are forms of micro-evolution and are
certainly not Earth shattering. The many
breeds of dog, for example, are thought by virtually all creationists to have
come from a few on Noah’s ark. And we
have heard of antibiotic-resistant bacteria for years.
But in none of these examples did the
birds, fish or bacteria become something else entirely (what are often called
different “kinds”). When the professors
were asked to confirm that none of these creatures actually gave rise to any
other type of creature, they responded, “Well, of course not,” even though that
is exactly what Darwinian evolution would suggest.
But we have to imagine these small
principles put into effect over millions of years. Then these small changes, applied to single-cell
organisms at the start, could give rise to the massive diversity we see around
us today, right? I would argue that they
could not. There are many good,
scholarly works out there that explain exactly why they could not, and I could
not do them justice. They are not hard
to find.
My
point is that there are scientific standards that the Theory of Evolution can
not meet. We are still free to believe
in it, but no one should blindly accept it as truth. And though it is not at the heart of
apologetics and is probably most often best left on the shelf, I think we need
to be careful about setting a bad example in that regard.
