by Ben Brothers, 1999
I recently had the chance to enjoy an interesting and surprisingly civil argument about evolution. A lot of people had different ideas about the whole enterprise, and there was a healthy respect for opinion. Afterwards, I decided to write down some of my thoughts on the subject, and the result is what you see here. I don't intend to get into the science, the evidence. That's far to broad a topic for this enterprise. And anyways, the place to get that kind of information is in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. I want to talk about the ideas and the world-views that make so many so reluctant to accept evolution.
First of all, in a debate that concerns philosophy to the extent that this one does, it's always best to let your audience know where you're coming from in advance. I'm a Christian. I'm also an evolutionist. I don't think there is any conflict between the two. But lots of people do, and therein lies our debate.
My faith leads me to believe that God created the world. My faith answers my questions about why the universe was created, and about who created it. It tells me nothing about how or when the universe was created. Science is the only way to find out the answers to these questions. This is a point that I feel is absolutely essential, and which is very dangerous to ignore. Faith is a way to understand that which cannot be known. Science is the way to understand that which can be known.
There's no fixed line of demarcation between that which cannot be known and that which can. It isn't necessary for there to be one. The history of our species has been one of discovery, of pushing back the frontier of the unknown. Consequently, we've come to rely less and less on faith, and more and more on knowledge. And that's a good thing, as far as it goes. Our technology gives us better and better ways to look at our past, and that has pushed the question of our ancestry from the realm of faith to the realm of knowledge.
People often ask me why I believe in evolution. I don't like that question. I don't like the word "believe". I don't want to believe, I want to know. I agree with current theories on evolution because the evidence we've collected to date supports those theories. Should more evidence come to light that does not agree with our ideas, I'll change my mind. More evidence is the only reason I'll change my mind.
I don't want to create the illusion that all scientists agree on all points of evolutionary theory. They don't. Anthropology and paleontology are inexact sciences. There is a common agreement on the basics, and on most of the finer points. There is fierce debate on a great many things. To many, this is seen as proof that the whole endeavor is flawed. After all, how could I be asked to believe something that they can't even agree on? But this is a feature, not a bug. It is science's greatest strength. Science is investigative, and self-corrective. Everything is open to criticism, and if there are inconsistencies, people will raise them. Theories are changed and refined until they offer the best possible explanation of current evidence. The theory of evolution is in constant flux, but that flux is completely separate from the fact of evolution. There is disagreement, for example, over whether the Neandertals are a separate species, Homo neanderthalensis, or a subspecies of man, Homo sapiens neanderthalensis. There is no disagreement over the fact that they are distinct from modern man, or that both they and us evolved from common hominid ancestors.
The current body of evidence favors evolution. There aren't any viable alternatives, given what we now know. That doesn't rule out the possibility of such alternatives in the future. But any new theories would have to explain the current evidence as well. Neither literal creationism nor "scientific creationism" do this. That's why they are not legitimate scientific answers. Another way of saying it: even if evolution were wrong, that doesn't mean that creationism is right.
Creationists often fear that, if evolution is true, then man, having fallen of his pedestal, will be debased. They fear he will lose his self-respect. There are two reasons I disagree. First, if false beliefs had led us to construct an undeserved pedestal in the first place, nothing is lost by ending the illusion. Second, there is grandeur in knowing, and living in, a great tapestry of creation. Our universe is grander and bigger and richer and more diverse than any stagnant, imaginary world where things were created in their present form in historic times. How much grander and bigger and better must the God who created it be, than we had previously imagined?
On another note, I've been told that the Institue for Creation Research is a well-informed and logical defense of creation science. I don't think so, so I've written a rebuttal of their claims.