Three Reasons I Am Not a Theistic Evolutionist

Introduction

Among the many issues that divide Christians, one of the most controversial is the issue of evolution. Indeed, it is difficult to find a contemporary issue that divides Christians more strongly. However, in spite of the caustic criticisms from Young-Earth Creationist (YEC) organizations, such as Answers in Genesis or The Institute for Creation Research, the idea of Theistic Evolution (hereafter TE) is gaining popularity. Prominent scientists, such as Francis Collins and the various experts associated with BioLogos, are publishing books putting TE forward as the only rational option for Christians to adopt. Basically, Christians are being told that the scientific evidence for evolution is overwhelming. We are embarrassing ourselves by continuing to deny what science has established beyond all reasonable doubt.

Despite all of this, I hold the belief that Christians should not accept TE. I wish to be clear that there are many Theistic Evolutionists who I hold in high regard. I do not write this article to insult those who hold to TE. My own dear friend, Evan Minton of Cerebral Faith, is a strong believer in Theistic Evolution. I do not believe TE is for the unintelligent, or that Theistic evolutionists are heretics. Nonetheless, I believe TE is an unnecessary compromise that frequently undermines Christianity in the minds of people. This is the what I shall argue for. I do this is a spirit of friendly disagreement and an interest in truth.

In fairness to my readers, I will put all my cards on the table. I am not a biologist, or a theologian, or an expert on this topic in any professional way. I am an amateur Christian apologist who has been studying and following this issue for the past several years. I am not a YEC, but I am a proponent of Intelligent Design (ID). Perhaps you are thinking that I am not to be taken seriously because I am not a professional in any relevant field. This is why I have tried to rely on the work of those who are experts in these topics. I present the information in this article as the knowledge I have learned from experts along the way. I will include many citations from credentialed experts along the way. You need not simply take my word for the information presented here. I encourage you, the reader, to check my citations and reach your own conclusions.

Definitions

Before we examine any issue, it is important to define the terms. I realize that evolution is not a monolithic theory. I oppose some versions more strongly than others. In this article, I am specifically arguing against Neo-Darwinian evolution. According to this theory, the mechanism of natural selection acting on random mutations over long periods of time is sufficient to account for all of the complexity and variety present in biological organisms. TE adds the additional claim that God either began this process or guided it in a way that was so subtle that it cannot be detected empirically. It is this type of Theistic Evolution that I have in mind when I use the term “evolution” or “Theistic Evolution.” By “theistic evolution” I mean “theistic Darwinism.”

Reason 1: Science

Although science may seem like the primary reason for accepting TE, I believe it is the foremost reason that Christians should oppose TE. A full-fledged critique of Neo-Darwinism goes beyond the scope of what I can accomplish here. However, since this is a major part of my case, I will briefly critique several common evidences used in support of evolution. Subsequently I will offer a brief case against evolution. In order for Neo-Darwinism to work, we require

1) Evidence that natural selection acting on random mutation can accomplish the level of change needed to account for the diversity of life

2) Evidence that such change has, in fact, taken place.

While most of the arguments offered for evolution focus on the second of these categories, the first category is the more important of the two. While I am personally skeptical of universal common ancestry, many ID proponents (most notably Michael Behe) affirm it. However, all ID proponents reject the creative power of the mutation/selection mechanism regardless of their stand on common ancestry.

One of the most common arguments for evolution is the contention that humans and chimps have 99% DNA similarity. The first thing to notice is that at best, this only demonstrates that humans and chimps are related. This does nothing to demonstrate that all forms of life are related, let alone that mutation and natural selection is the mechanism responsible for the divergence. However, it is not even true that human and chimps have 99% DNA similarity. While loudly trumpeted by Darwinists as near-conclusive proof of evolution a few years back, more recent studies have revealed that human and chimp DNA is closer to 97% similar and some estimates are as low as 95%. Of course, some may argue that these numbers are still comparatively close. But, when one considers just how vast the amount of information in a genome is, even 1% difference becomes a substantial amount, let alone 5%. Additionally, the 97%-95% similarities that exist are confined to the so-called “body building” section of the genome. Since chimps and humans do share a somewhat similar body structure, it shouldn’t be all that surprising that they share a degree of similarity when it comes to their body building DNA. It’s not even clear that more similar DNA indicates closer ancestry. Consider that a common mouse has some genes that are also 99% similar to humans. Yet, humans are not considered to be very closely related to mice.

Related to this point, some believers in TE, such as Ken Miller, have argued that the evidence of a chromosomal fusion event shows that chimps and humans are closely related. Human chromosome 2 apparently fused with another chromosome some six million years ago, which means that prior to this fusion event, humans shared the same number of chromosomes as chimps. The argument is that humans and chimps likely share a common ancestor because they once had the same number of chromosomes. I note again that at best this only demonstrates that humans and chimps are related. It doesn’t show that all life is related, or that the mutation/selection mechanism is responsible for the change. This argument is odd because it is arguing from a difference between humans and chimps - not a similarity. Assuming this chromosomal fusion really happened, it only demonstrates yet another similarity between humans and chimps once existed. However, no one denies that there are several similarities between humans and chimps at the genetic level (as I’ve conceded humans share at least 95% of their DNA with chimps). Demonstrating that one other genetic similarity once existed does not prove that humans are related to chimps. I’ll offer a fuller critique of why similarities don’t necessarily indicate common ancestry below when I discuss homologies.

Francis Collins, once the head of the Human Genome Project, has argued that junk DNA provides powerful evidence for common ancestry. The basic idea behind this argument is that since only 2% of our DNA is functional and the rest is useless (“junk”), it is more reasonable to explain the vast amount of useless DNA by reference to a long evolutionary history. Why would God create us with a bunch of useless information?

This argument may have seemed plausible prior to the discoveries of the ENCODE project. Thanks to this project we know that at least 50% of our genome is functional, and perhaps as much 80%. With this research raising the numbers so drastically, it looks promising that functions will be discovered for the remainder of the genome. Thus, the “Junk DNA” argument is not only outdated, but it also an argument from ignorance. It doesn’t follow that because we simply don’t know what parts of the genome do, that there is therefore no function that they serve. Recent studies are giving us good reason to believe that future discoveries will reveal that the entire genome has purpose.

Another evidence commonly offered for evolution comes from changes in the sizes of the beaks of finches living on the Galápagos Islands. Because Darwin collected thirteen species of these finches wile he was visiting these islands, they became known as “Darwin’s finches.” The beaks of these finches have been observed to get larger and smaller with passing generations, and this has been offered as evidence for evolution. However, this is hardly evidence for Darwin’s theory. No one denies that small-scale changes can happen within existing species. The finches have not had anything fundamentally new added. All that has been observed is fluctuation - not Darwinian evolution.

Perhaps you have seen a picture of a bat wing, a dolphin flipper, a horse leg, and a human arm all side by side. The picture is intended to demonstrate that although the four appendages serve different purposes, they all have a common structure. These similarities are known as homologies. Darwinists point out that this common structure easily explained by the theory of common ancestry. First, even if we conceded that common ancestry had indeed happened, we would still have no reason to conclude that mutation and natural selection caused the change. However, this explained just as well by the theory of a common design plan. Consider that there are many examples of where a common plan is used for different constructions by intelligent agents. Think of automobiles. Almost all automobiles have four wheels, an exhaust pipe, an engine, a steering wheel, and so on. These similarities are certainly not due to common ancestry. The fact of the matter is that intelligent beings use useful models and plans over and over again for different purposes. Thus, homologies are explained equally well by common design plan as they are by common ancestry.

Finally we come to the fossil record. I am always surprised when Darwinists appeal to the fossil record for evidence for evolution. It’s no secret among paleontologists that the fossil record does not look how one would expect if Darwinian evolution were true. Indeed, Darwinists routinely admit that the theory conflicts with the fossil record. Usually, Darwinists make their case by appealing to a few transitions while ignoring the fossil record as a whole. Perhaps the most famous transition is the hominid transition. This transition primarily relies on the fossils of Homo Neanderthalensis, Homo Erectus, Homo Floresiensis, Australopithecus Afarensis, Ardipithecus Ramidius, and Homo Habilis. Allegedly these fossils nicely link humans to apes. However, the devil lies in the details. Things aren’t nearly a clear as Darwinists present them. The fossils classified as Homo are all fully human. They were indeed primitive, but evidence exists that they had tools, built ships, and were even religious. The Australopithecines were fully ape. Their small brain cases, flat feet, and lack of bipedal locomotion give us no reason to believe they were anything other than ape. As for Homo Habilis, it isn’t even a real species. It’s a waste bin for all unknown or unclassified hominid bones. In short, the fossils in the hominid transition are fully ape, fully human, or nonexistent. Rulon James Downard has argued that the therapsid to mammal transition is a compelling evidence for evolution. However, once the details are examined, his case falls apart. The fossils presented in this transition do not appear in the fossil record in the order required for this transitions to work. The dates aren’t the only problem. The sizes of the fossils also don’t correspond to the morphological changes. In other words, once we consider more than just morphology, the sizes and ages of the fossils in this transition do not demonstrate this transition at all. Another popular transition is the land mammal to whale transition. Fossils such as the Pakicetus, Ambulocetus, Rodhocetus, and Basilsaurus are used to show a smooth line from land mammal to whale. There’s about an eight million year span of time between the earliest fossil in this transition (Pakicetus) and the modern whales. It’s doubtful that the sheer number of differences between Pakicetus, a fully land-dwelling creature, and modern whales could be accomplished in so short a time. Add to this that a fossil that is very similar to Basilsaurus (the fossil immediately preceding modern whales) was discovered in Antarctica which dates to forty-nine million years old. This makes the Basilsaurus older than many of its supposed ancestors and makes the time gap much shorter than eight million years. This renders a land mammal to whale transition shaky at best, and impossible at worst.

The Archaeopteryx remains a popular evidence of transition from reptile to bird, even though it has been known that bird already existed by the time Archaeopteryx did. The fossil Tiktaalik has been claimed to be a link between fish and tetrapods, even though fossilized tetrapod footprints have been discovered that predate Tiktaalik by millions of years. Each fossil presented in favor of evolution has serious problems in demonstrating what it is supposed to demonstrate. The fossil record shows much discontinuity. New forms appear suddenly, without any discernible precursors, and they change only slightly. The Cambrian explosion is only the most dramatic example of this general trend. According to Darwinian theory, all life is descended from a single common ancestor. Thus, the fossil record, even if incomplete, should show at least a generally tree-like patter. But, it doesn’t. In stark contrast to Darwinism, the Cambrian explosion has almost all the modern day phyla appearing in a relatively small window of about ten million years. Of course Darwinists have imagined fantastic scenarios to explain why the fossil record doesn’t look like what we would expect. But, if Darwinists must explain to us why the fossil record doesn’t look like it supports the theory, how can the fossil record be used as evidence for the theory? Thus, the fossil record, far from providing evidence for evolution, is the most destructive piece of evidence against the theory.

Some Darwinists point to phylogenetic trees as evidence for the theory. Phylogenetic trees attempt to compare different species’ genetics among themselves to determine how similar they are. An evolutionary “tree” is then constructed based on these similarities which purportedly demonstrates how closely related the various species are to each other. However, these “trees” frequently contradict one other depending on which nucleotide sequences or genes are used to construct the tree. Additionally, this is a circular argument because it assumes common ancestry is true. It assumes that common ancestry is the cause of the similarities.

Richard Lenski’s experiments with E. coli bacteria are also a popular evidence for evolution. Lenski’s experiment’s showed the experimental bacteria could evolve to digest new forms of food. Lenski’s experiments with E. coli bacteria actually undermine Darwin’s theory because despite being upheld as a major evidence for the theory, the only positive changes that have occurred in the bacteria have been at the loss of other functions and information. Additionally nothing fundamentally new has been added. Some Darwinists will still even still use Ernst Haeckel’s fake drawings of embryos. Entire books have been dedicated to each of the examples I’ve briefly critiqued. I encourage my readers to read them and see that the evidence for evolution is highly contrived and sometimes simply false.

However, there is a further piece of evidence against Darwinian accounts of life, which has to do with the very nature of the mutation/selection mechanism. Natural selection can only act on existing changes (i.e. it can only select from the available options). Thus, mutations alone must cause the changes in an evolutionary scenario. But, there’s a problem with this. New discoveries are showing that the only sort of mutation that can have a major affect on an organism must happen early in an embryo’s development. Later mutations won’t affect the basic body plan or structure of an organism. But, mutations that take place at an early stage of development are always deadly. Therefore, this problem (called embryonic lethals) is catastrophic for all Darwinian accounts of life. Since no convincing evidence exists for Darwinism, and there is considerable evidence against, Christians should reject evolution because it is empirically false.

Reason 2: Natural Theology

I cannot count how many times I have heard a proponent of TE say something along the lines of, “We don’t need to oppose evolution, because there is plenty of evidence for God’s existence apart from biology.” Even Christian philosopher and apologist William Lane Craig (a man who I hold the highest respect for) has gone on record to say that evolution is “irrelevant” to God’s existence. This argument seems to be saying that we should not make a design argument based on evidence from biology because there are other places to go to find evidence for God.

I must freely confess that I have never understood the logic behind this reasoning. Imagine if someone were to say that we shouldn’t use the beginning of the universe as evidence for God’s existence because we had evidence in other places. What if someone said we should argue for God’s existence based on objective morality because there is evidence elsewhere? The problem is that if we reject arguments for God’s existence because there are other arguments that exist, we eventually run out of arguments. The case for theism is stronger because there are many arguments. This is a good thing because if a theist comes to doubt one or two arguments for God, he still has others to support his belief. But, if a theist comes to doubt or reject all of the arguments for God’s existence, he is without support for his beliefs. Therefore it seems odd to have other Christian theists telling us that we should reject the design argument from biology. There seems to be a secret motive behind this. You get the feeling that people who say this believe that the design argument from biology isn’t really valid. That’s fine. But let that be the reason. Just say, “We shouldn’t fight over biology because we can’t really tell if design exists there.” But, let’s stop pretending that the reason for rejecting the design argument from biology should be rejected on the basis of other theistic arguments. I simply ask what other argument theists do this for? And if not for any other argument, why is the biological design argument the exception? Why do theists want to weaken the case for God’s existence? Isn’t it better to have as many arguments as possible? I can only conclude that the reasoning is that the design argument from biology is not valid in some way. But then, this is what TE sympathizers should be saying. ID proponents have developed and defended rigorous criteria for detecting design. Additionally they have argued that such design exists in biological organisms. Simply saying Christians should drop the issue of evolution because there are other theistic arguments seems like a lazy attempt to not engage with the defenses of biological design.

Reason 3: Practicality

Near the beginning of my journey into apologetics, I read two books that left an impression on me. The author of one was an atheist, and the author of the other was a Christian who had once been an atheist. They told a similar story of how they had come to reject God’s existence when they learned of evolution. The first was well-known atheist biologist and activist, Richard Dawkins. The second was atheist-turned-Christian Lee Strobel. These are just two examples of countless people who have told me that they rejected Christianity because they came to believe in evolution. Certainly part of the blame lies with Christian leaders who have misled their followers into believing that if evolution is true, then Christianity is false. However, I think the implications of being the product a blind, purposeless process are not lost on the average layman. If we came about through a purposeless process (purposeless as far as we can tell) then it’s difficult to believe that we have a purpose.

Strobel, eventually returned to Christianity and came to reject evolution. Regarding TE he said, “I could never understand Christians who would say, ‘Well you know, I believe in God, and yet I believe in evolution as well.’ … Modern science generally defines [evolution] as an undirected process, completely devoid of any purpose or plan. Now, how could God direct an undirected process? How could God have purpose and plan behind a system that has no plan and no purpose? It just does not make sense.” His point is well made.

Of course those who believe in TE may well answer that evolution isn’t really undirected, but it only appears to be undirected. However this argument strikes me as being similar to the YEC argument that the universe looks old because God created it with the appearance of age. Both of these claims have serious epistemic problems, namely, they make God a deceiver. If God is deceiving us through nature, what grounds do we have for believing He isn’t deceiving us through Scripture? Additionally, if evolution appears to be an unirected process, then that would mean that biological organism don’t appear to be designed. But, How does the idea of an apparently undirected process fit with what Paul wrote in Romans 1:20? “For the invisible things of him [God] from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made.” A proponent of TE may wish to say that things which God made (outside of biology) do bear witness to God’s creative hand. They may reference the fine-tuning argument so splendidly defended by Robin Collins. The problem is that the fine-tuning argument is not “clearly seen.” It requires substantial knowledge that is simply not available to most people. Yet, Romans 1 goes on to say that people are condemned for suppressing this evidence of God. God can’t condemn people on the basis of what they have no knowledge of (i.e. the cosmological constant, etc). Thus the evidence for God needs to be apparent by things which are made, and which are readily available.

Another caveat the proponent of TE may try is to say that people didn’t know about evolution when Paul wrote Romans. The logic behind this seems to be that people could have believed based on biological design in the first century because the evidence for evolution was not yet available. There’s an obvious problem here. Yes, people could have believed back then, but they would have been wrong in why they believed. Proponests of TE would have us believe that they weren’t actually justified in believing in God for the reason they did. Remember, God condemns these people for suppressing the knowledge He gave through creation. TE’s radical solution is to ultimately say God condemned people for believing what was ultimately true. That is an unacceptable conclusion.

Conclusion

Although I have argued that the issue of evolution is indeed important, I wish to conclude by saying it is not of the deepest importance. The concerns I have raised here are secondary to matters concerning the essential doctrines of the Christian faith. Theistic evolutionists are not my “enemies.” They are my brothers in Christ and I appreciate them. That being said, I also hope that Christians will see that there are serious reasons to oppose TE. Rather than surrendering to Neo-Darwinism, Christians are in a better position than ever to confront it. It is my prayer that more believers realize and defend this.

Bibliography

Axe, Douglas. Undeniable. New York, NY: HarperOne, 2016.

Axe, Douglas Casey Luskin, Ann Gauger. Science & Human Origins. Seattle, WA: Discovery Institute Press, 2012.

Baggett, David and Jerry L. Walls. Good God: The Theistic Foundations of Morality. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2011.

Behe, Michael. The Edge of Evolution. New York, NY: Free Press, 2007.

Brown, Paul and Robert Stackpole, editors. More Than Myth. Leicester, UK: Chartwell Press, 2014.

Collins, Francis. The Language of God. New York, NY: Free Press, 2006.

Craig, William Lane and J. P. Moreland, editors. The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2009.

Dawkins, Richard. The God Delusion. .New York, NY: First Mariner Books, 2006.

---. The Greatest Show on Earth. New York, NY: Free Press, 2009.

Dembski, William. Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science & Theology. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 1999.

--- editor. Mere Creation. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 1998.

Demski, William and Jonathan Wells. The Design of Life. Dallas, TX: The Foundation for Thought and Ethics, 2008.

Denton, Michael. Evolution: Still a Theory in Crisis. Seattle, WA: Discovery Institute Press, 2016.

Downard, James. Evolution Slam Dunk. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, 2016.

Erwin, Douglas and James W. Valentine, The Cambrian Explosion. New York, NY: W. H. Freeman Publishers, 2013.

Gundry, Stanley N. and J. B. Stump, editors. Four Views on Creation, Evolution, and Intelligent Design. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2017.

Klinghoffer, David editor. Debating Darwin’s Doubt. Seattle, WA: Discovery Institute Press, 2015.

Leisola, Matti and Jonathan Witt. Heretic. Seattle, WA: Discovery Institute Press, 2018.

Lubenow, Marvin L. Bones of Contention. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2004.

Meyer, Stephen C. Darwin’s Doubt. New York, NY: HarperCollins, 2013.

Moreland, J. P., Stephen C. Meyer, Christopher Shaw, Wayne Grudem, and Ann K. Gauger, editors. Theistic Evolution: A Scientific, Philosophical, and Theological Critique. Wheaton IL: Crossway, 2017.

Nevins, Norman C. editor. Should Christians Embrace Evolution? Biblical and Scientific Responses. Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press, 2009.

Richards, Jay W. editor. God and Evolution. Seattle, WA: Discovery Institute Press, 2010

Rupe, Christopher and John C. Sanford. Contested Bones. FMS Publications, 2017

Sanford, John C. Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome. Lima, NY: Ivan Press, 2005.

Sarfati, Jonathan. Refuting Evolution. Atlanta, GA: Creation Book Publishers.

---. The Greatest Hoax on Earth. Atlanta, GA: Creation Book Publishers, 2010.

Sermonti, Giuseppe. Why is a Fly not a Horse?. Seattle, WA: Discovery Institute Press, 2005.

Strobel, Lee. The Case for a Creator. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2004.

Wells, Jonathan. Icons of Evolution. Washington, DC: Regnery Publishing, 2000.

---. The Myth of Junk DNA. Seattle, WA: Discovery Institute Press, 2011.

---. Zombie Science. Seattle, WA: Discovery Institute Press, 2017.