God Did It, But How?

October 23, 2005

When people find out that I am a Christian and a scientist, they sometimes ask me whether I believe in evolution. When they ask me that question, my short answer is, “No.” My long answer is, “I don’t care.” This morning, I hope to explain some of the reasons why I answer that way. I don’t have the time to exhaustively cover all aspects of the creation-evolution debate, but I do hope to also familiarize you with a few of what I consider the most salient points of the discussion.

In a formal sense, creation and evolution are not opposed to each other. God could have created a world of which evolution is a part. Also, a person can question the ability of evolution to explain how life as we know it arose without invoking a creator. I am not suggesting that those positions are equally plausible with each other or with other positions. What I AM saying is that the creation-evolution “debate” is not a true debate. What is a true debate is whether a personal Creator created life with a purpose or life arose by coincidence without a purpose. Another debate is whether evolution is or is not the best explanation for how life arose. The resolution of one debate, however, would not automatically resolve the other.

To the extent that creation and evolution are debated, the discussion is almost exclusively an American phenomenon. I don’t know if that fact says more about American Christians or Christians in other countries or what. Perhaps it’s at least worth considering that we in America waste too much energy on the topic.

As I alluded to earlier, creation and evolution represent two areas of a spectrum of viewpoints. At one extreme is the Young Earth Creationism view, which holds that both the planet Earth and the human race appeared relatively recently. Proponents of this view usually understand the “days” in Genesis 1 to refer to 24-hour time periods. This view has come to define the term “creationism” in public discourse. Many of us might understand “creationism” to simply mean “belief in a creator” but the term is more loaded than that. At the other extreme of the spectrum is the view that the Earth and life as we know it are both eternal. This view is not especially common in the United States, though. For us, the practical extreme is the Materialistic (or Atheistic) Evolutionism view. Historically, the Young Earth Creationism and Materialistic Evolutionism camps have dominated the public debate in the U.S. This is unfortunate because in between the two extremes are a range of viewpoints that differ in terms of how old the Earth is, how old the human race is, whether God was involved, and whether evolution describes how life arose. The majority of people most likely fall between the extremes.

So far, I have been talking about evolution without defining what it is. A dictionary definition of evolution is, “Change over time.” This definition is practically useless in this discussion, however, because there are different levels of change and almost no one disputes that certain changes occur. Some people draw a distinction between microevolution and macroevolution. Microevolution usually encompasses those changes that occur within a species, whereas macroevolution includes changes between species or at a higher level. Microevolution is generally not a matter of controversy. Macroevolution is often described as descent with modification from a common ancestor. Darwinian evolution is the form of macroevolution in which natural selection is the sole means by which inherited changes are accumulated to form functional structures. Natural selection, or “survival of the fittest,” is the mechanism by which inherited changes that improve the fitness of individuals persist and propagate but changes that make an individual less fit do not. The role of natural selection is to reduce the rate of accumulation of harmful mutations. (Just as an aside, natural selection is not a matter of controversy per se. What is controversial is whether it is the only mechanism that operates.) Evolutionism is the ideology that all organisms arose from non-living matter solely by evolution. Darwinism is the ideology that all organisms arose from non-living matter solely by Darwinian evolution. Theistic evolution differs from Darwinism in that life is thought to arise from pre-existing life, so God created the first organism from which all others have descended.

That last note sheds some light on why I tell people, “I don’t care,” when they ask me about evolution. The term evolution usually refers to biological evolution, or the evolution of organisms, but biological evolution says nothing about where the first organism came from. If God is to be excluded, biological evolution is not enough. The universe would first have to come into existence. Stellar evolution would have to occur to form chemical building blocks. Chemical evolution would have to happen to convert the chemical building blocks into the molecules of life. And, finally, the molecules of life would have to organize into a living organism, a conversion known as “abiogenesis.” I have no problem with stellar evolution as it is currently described. I am skeptical to say the least that chemical evolution could happen by chance. And I certainly don’t see how the beginning of the universe or abiogenesis could happen without direction.

Another reason I don't particularly care about biological evolution is that it is not the central issue. Even if someone were to announce a discovery tomorrow that proved Darwinian evolution beyond a shadow of a doubt, we would all still need a Savior. If someone were to announce a discovery tomorrow that proved Darwinian evolution wrong, people will still need to be persuaded that they need a Savior.

It might be useful at this point to take a look at the historical development of science and the study of origins. Darwin first publicly proposed his evolution model in 1859. There’s a common perception that prior to 1859 the dominant view was that design in nature was seen as evidence of a Creator and that Darwinism therefore undermined theism by invalidating this argument from design. That perception, however, is wrong. The argument from design was never widely accepted outside of Judaism and its off-shoots. As an element of discourse among scientists, the argument from design did not appear until the late 1600s. Coincidentally, the argument from design arose at roughly the same time as various evolutionary arguments. So why did these two categories appear at the same time? The answer is the discovery of novelty in paleontology, that is, the appearance of fossils with no obvious predecessors. Design by a Creator and evolution were attempts to explain how these organisms came to be. One often-overlooked point, though, is that among scientists prior to 1859, neither design nor evolution was necessary as an explanation because spontaneous generation was still widely accepted. In other words, there was already a widespread acceptance of materialism, or the notion that living things could arise from non-living materials without the intervention of a Creator. There was also essentially universal acceptance of the idea that the Earth was infinitely old. Darwin’s model was a turning point in the development of evolutionary descriptions because of his use of natural selection as the operating mechanism, but it was not the crucial turning point in the study of origins. The real turning point came in 1861 when Louis Pasteur showed that spontaneous generation did not occur. Once that was established, there were only three alternative explanations for the novelty in paleontology: design, Darwinism, and arrival from space. Darwinism took hold because many scientists were already committed to materialism.

Darwinism took hold for another reason, too. Before the scientific revolution, some people would invoke supernatural action to explain what was not known about natural processes. This method of explaining the unknown is referred to as the God of the gaps fallacy. As science progressed and discovered explanations for natural processes that did not require supernatural intervention, gaps closed. The success of science fostered an expectation that all gaps would eventually close. Darwinism seemed to close the gap of knowledge about where organisms came from.

The God of the gaps approach is rightly called a fallacy but often for the wrong reason. The usual reason it is called a fallacy is because the so-called gaps can eventually close. I do not view that as a problem, though. People who see that as a problem make a mistake of assuming that every event has one and only one cause. Events actually have six causes. The efficient cause is that by which something happens. The final cause is that for which something happens. The formal cause is that of which something happens. The material cause is that out of which something happens. The exemplar cause is that after which something happens. The instrumental cause is that through which something happens. There is no reason to assume that a material or natural explanation means that a supernatural agent was not involved. God could be the efficient or instrumental cause without being the formal or material cause. An example from Scripture would be the parting of the Red Sea. The account says that God caused a wind to blow, and the wind parted the water. An example from science might be the Big Bang, which is the name of the explosion by which space and time came into existence from infinite density. This description of the beginning of the universe sounds suspiciously like creation out of nothing. In addition, we as Christians affirm in Colossians 1:17 that God’s activity includes maintaining what He already made. Natural laws are one of the ways we describe this on-going maintenance activity. The God of the gaps approach is a fallacy because it assumes that the gaps in knowledge point to God.

One of the more tragic consequences, in my opinion, of the failure of the God of the gaps approach was that the church became overly defensive. Just as some scientists became excessively optimistic about the ability of science to find natural explanations for phenomena, some church leaders became fearful that science would destroy religion. In order to prevent the conquest of religion by science, these church leaders suggested that the realms of faith and science should not intersect or overlap. Some other church leaders adopted a more aggressive posture and tried to attack science. It was from this movement that Young Earth Creationism grew.

I consider this defensiveness on the part of the church tragic for a couple of reasons. First, modern science would not have arisen apart from Christianity. Christianity distinguished the Creator from His creation, but maintained that the creation was very good. In doing so, Christianity removed the sacred status of the universe, which made the study and dissection of the universe possible, while upholding the value of matter against Gnostic disdain for it. The reinvigorated Christianity in the post-Reformation period was directly responsible for the scientific revolution. My second reason for considering the defensiveness tragic is simply the assumption that if the same God is the Author of both creation and the Bible, the two revelations will not contradict themselves. Any apparent contradictions are the result of a misinterpretation of the scientific record, a misinterpretation of Scripture, or both. Take the “days” of Genesis 1, for example. The allegedly literal interpretation is that they refer to 24-hour time periods. I am reminded of an incident in the mid-1990s when the Alabama legislature was debating whether to declare English the official language of the state. One legislator said, “If English was good enough for Jesus Christ, it should be good enough for us.” Of course, Jesus did not speak English. He did not even have an English accent like He always seems to in the movies. Nor did Moses use English when he wrote Genesis. Even without trying to sort out the Hebrew vocabulary, however, there are indications in the English rendering that equating the days with 24-hour periods is a misinterpretation. For one thing, the first six days are closed with the phrase, “And there was evening, and there was morning—the [blank] day.” The seventh day, the day of rest, however, is never closed. One can reasonably interpret that to mean that God’s “day” of rest from creation activity is still in progress. Also, since the days are referring to God’s work, we could remind ourselves that God is no more constrained by time than He is constrained by a physical body when we read the phrase, “the hand of God.”

When I talk to people about biological evolution, I like to point out several things. Before I tell you what those are, I am going to tell you what I don’t point out. I do not criticize evolution as “just a theory.” A theory in science is more than just speculation. It is a framework for understanding observations. The more coherently and comprehensively it explains observations, the more persuasive it is. When I discuss evolution, I even try to avoid using the word “theory.” I usually use the word “model” because I think it more accurately describes for non-scientists what evolution is. I also do not associate evolution with atheism unless the person I’m talking to does so first. Lastly, I do not use Social Darwinism, or the misapplication of the principle of natural selection to society and politics, as a criticism of Darwinian evolution.

One thing I do like to point out is that Darwin proposed his evolutionary model at a time when people thought the Earth was infinitely old and at a time when nothing was known about DNA and other molecular biochemistry. Today, we know that the universe most likely had a beginning and that the Earth definitely had a beginning. We also know that the Earth was uninhabitable for a period of time after its formation. We know that life appeared rapidly once the environmental conditions changed. We know that most, if not all, life forms were driven to extinction by catastrophic events on more than one occasion. Yet, in spite of all of these discoveries and others I haven’t mentioned, Darwinism hasn’t particularly changed. A Darwinist would most likely respond that what I have observed shows how robust the model is, but I would argue that a model that purports to describe change over time yet is immune to new time constraints is no model at all.

An evolutionary model explains higher, or more complex, organisms in terms of the lower, or less complex organisms. Organisms are thereby reduced to collections of component parts. Under an evolutionary model, complexity would result from a greater number of component parts. In biology, the component parts are called “genes.” Genes are segments of DNA that encode certain pieces of information. The collection of an organism’s genes is known as the “genome.” When DNA sequence identification became a relatively routine procedure, an ambitious effort to map the human genome was started. At the onset of the Human Genome Project, the prediction—based on what was known about the genomes of other organisms and the relative complexity of humans—was that the human genome would consist of approximately 100,000 genes. In the last year, the actual number of genes was revised to approximately 25,000, which is about the same number as the roundworm. Call me crazy, but I would say the prediction was a little off the mark! This finding would seem to be problematic for someone who explains higher organisms in terms of the lower.

Sometimes the evidence proponents of evolution cite in support of their position is not relevant. A couple of months ago, a biology professor at Richland Community College was quoted in the Decatur newspaper as citing viruses as proof of evolution. Given that viruses are not living organisms, it's hard to see how their propensity to mutate is proof of descent from a common ancestor. This example also illustrates the tendency of some people to use examples of microevolution to try to make the case for macroevolution. Proponents of evolution also sometimes refer to the results of certain experiments as proof of evolution, but experiments are contrived events that happen under a specific set of conditions that the experimentalist chose. If anything, controlled experiments prove that chance is not enough.

If I were really having a conversation with someone about evolution, I would probably point out some other interesting questions from biology, and I would certainly discuss some of the problems with chemical evolution. Rather than get bogged down in a lot of technical information this morning, though, I want to get back to the public debate because it has been back in the headlines lately.

The two most recent flare-ups in the public debate have taken place in Kansas and Pennsylvania. In Kansas, the Board of Education conducted hearings in May about how science should be taught. One of the questions on the table was whether to change the operational definition of “science” for their educational materials. The older definition described science as the “human activity of systematically seeking natural explanations for what we observe in the world around us.” The new definition describes science as “a systematic method of continuing investigation that uses observation, hypothesis testing, measurement, experimentation, logical argument, and theory building to lead to more adequate explanations of natural phenomena.” The professional science community responded quickly and negatively to the new definition. I personally think the reaction was unwarranted. The new definition does a pretty good job of describing what I do, and it is in line with the definitions that about 40 states already use. The scientists who reacted negatively argued that the removal of the constraint that only natural explanations are permissible would open the door to discussions of supernatural explanations. That might be true, but such explanations would only arise if they were based on observation and were more adequate as explanations. We in science pay lip service to the idea of letting the evidence lead where it leads. The newer definition of science seems to me to be more consistent with that idea.

The situation in Pennsylvania is a court case. A lawsuit was filed against a school district that adopted a statement that science teachers were expected to read to their classes. The four-paragraph statement reads:

The Pennsylvania Academic Standards require students to learn about Darwin’s theory of evolution and eventually to take a standardized test of which evolution is a part.

Because Darwin’s theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The theory is not a fact. Gaps in the theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations.

Intelligent design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin’s view. The reference book, Of Pandas and People, is available for students who might be interested in gaining an understanding of what intelligent design actually involves.

With respect to any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind. The school leaves the discussion of the origins of life to individual students and their families. As a standards-driven district, class instruction focuses upon preparing students to achieve proficiency on standards-based assessments.

If the third paragraph about Intelligent Design were not included in the statement, I’m not sure there would be any controversy except among a few radicals who resent any insinuation that evolution is not factual. It is expected that the court, in order to decide the case, will rule on whether Intelligent Design qualifies as science.

If all you know about Intelligent Design is what you’ve read in newspaper accounts of this court case in Pennsylvania, you are misinformed. Intelligent Design appeared on the scene about 15 years ago. In 1987, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on a case from Louisiana that Young Earth Creationism could not be taught in school science classes on the grounds that it is religious rather than scientific. One little noted aspect of the decision, however, was that the Court’s ruling permitted criticisms of and alternatives to evolution to be taught provided they qualify as scientific. A few years later, two books were published. One was Evolution: A Theory in Crisis by Michael Denton, an evolutionary biologist. The other was Darwin on Trial by Phillip Johnson, a law professor at Berkeley. Johnson is considered one of the fathers of Intelligent Design because his book targeted the philosophical underpinnings of evolutionism as an ideology. Denton is not generally considered a father of Intelligent Design, in part because he has not abandoned evolution as a model.

In science, a model, no matter how weakened, will not be abandoned until a more viable alternative is available. The next step in the development of Intelligent Design as an alternative explanation of origins was the publication of William Dembski’s book The Design Inference. Dembski was trained in mathematics and philosophy. He reasoned that the principles for inferring design by an intelligent agent in the origin of life would be the same as those for inferring intelligent design in a criminal forensics situation. His book set out the criteria for recognizing intelligent design, or what Dembski called the Explanatory Filter. Dembski contributed two significant ideas to Intelligent Design. The first is that information is the work of an intelligent agent if it is both specified and complex. For example, we can differentiate a 250-word written essay from a page of the same letter over and over again (which is specific but simple) or a page of jumbled type (which is complex but not specific). The second contribution is that there is a law of conservation of information. In other words, information does not come out of nowhere.

The other father of Intelligent Design is considered to be Michael Behe, a professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University, who wrote a book in the mid-1990s called Darwin’s Black Box. His contribution was the notion of irreducible complexity. Irreducible complexity is the idea that certain biological and biochemical systems consist of multiple parts, all of which are necessary for the system to operate. If any one of the parts is removed, the system collapses. The Darwinian evolution model would predict that complex systems gradually form from less complex systems, but irreducible complexity says such gradual development is not possible. An example is the chemistry of vision. For light to be seen, a series of chemical reactions involving nine different molecules needs to occur. The Darwinian model would imply that primitive vision began much more simply and eventually grew to include the nine different molecules. However, we know that the removal of any one of the nine molecules leads to complete loss of vision, not just weaker vision.

Some of you might be wondering why the astronomer Hugh Ross is not considered one of the founders of Intelligent Design. I suspect part of the reason is that his books have not garnered the same attention as the other ones I have mentioned. But an even bigger part of the reason is that Dr. Ross does not include himself in the Intelligent Design movement. Most of the advocates of Intelligent Design say that the theory tells us nothing about who the designer is, only that one is at work. Hugh Ross says the design we detect specifically reveals a Designer with the characteristics of the God of the Bible. Ross also emphasizes evidence from outside the biological realm.

Intelligent Design has been criticized on a number of grounds. Scientists typically take one of several approaches to criticize it. One form of criticism is that it is not science but Creationism in disguise. That form of criticism is what motivated the lawsuit in Pennsylvania. I think it’s easy to establish that Intelligent Design is not Creationism. As I said, Intelligent Design does not specify the identity of the Designer, but Creationism does. Also, Creationism denies what is known as the principle of uniformitarianism, or the principle that natural laws have always operated the same way. For instance, a Creationist might assert that the rate of radioactive decay has changed over time, so carbon dating is an unreliable method for determining the age of objects. Intelligent Design upholds the principle. Creationism typically involves a so-called literal interpretation of Genesis 1, but Intelligent Design is not specifically connected to the Genesis account. Even if it were, Intelligent Design would understand the “days” to refer to long periods of time.

Whether Intelligent Design is science is a trickier question. The professional science community generally asserts that it is not, but the assertion is based on the premise that explanations that transcend nature are off-limits. Another test of a scientific theory is whether it can be proven false. I do not mean that the theory fails if it is proven false, although that would be the case. What I mean is that if a theory cannot be subject to testing, it is useless as a theory. Some people would say that Intelligent Design is untestable, but if it isn’t testable, I’m not sure evolution is, either.

Another form of criticism that scientists adopt is to call Intelligent Design a God of the gaps approach. I think this criticism is inaccurate because Intelligent Design springs from what we know about complex systems and complex information, not from what we don’t know.

The other major approach scientists take in criticizing Intelligent Design is to cite evidence that the design is not very intelligently done. They look for inefficiencies and what appear to be wasteful features. This analysis, though, equates the Designer with an engineer interested only in mechanical optimization. The problem with this criticism is that the Designer might have other purposes in mind or perhaps an inefficiency in one respect might be helpful in another respect. When a pharmaceutical company develops a new medicine, it does not necessarily choose the most potent candidate. The company seeks a balance among several factors including the potency, the side effects, and the ease of administration. Maybe the Designer operates in a similar fashion. I don’t think it’s an especially good design for me to have allergies, but I am thankful that I have an immune system.

Intelligent Design is also criticized by Christians. One criticism is that the unnamed Designer is a poor imitation of the God we know. Another criticism is that Dembski’s Explanatory Filter does not detect design in systems that do not exhibit specified complexity. There is nothing to stop someone from calling such a system the product of design, but there wouldn’t be a very persuasive case for doing so. A similar criticism applies to Behe’s concept of irreducible complexity. The result is that Intelligent Design rests on conditions that do not apply in most situations.

I’m not sure if this next one is a true criticism or merely a question, but Intelligent Design proponents typically do not specify if the term “Design” refers to a conceptualization or to the actual assembly. If it refers to assembly, then the Designer must intervene to bring about the intended results. If “Design” refers to conceptualization, then the Designer might have instilled the creation from the beginning with the wherewithal to bring about the emergence of all biological forms and complexities. I think it is fair to ask Intelligent Design proponents what they mean when they use certain terms, but I also think it’s a mistake to assume that the Designer must either constantly intervene or never intervene. I don’t see why the Designer couldn’t remotely cause most outcomes from the beginning of time but also intervene on occasion to immediately cause other outcomes.

Although Intelligent Design is subject to various criticisms, I am prepared to give it a chance to grow as a model. In five or ten years, we should have a much clearer picture of how well it will live up to its claims as a scientific model. Even if it fails as a scientific enterprise, it might succeed at exposing materialist philosophy that masquerades as science.

So, where does that leave us? I think that arguments based on design always have the chance to be persuasive. Romans 1:20 reads, “For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.” We have divine assurance that God has left His signature on Creation in such a way that people who are willing to see it, can. That signature may be more evident in the fine-tuning of the universe than in irreducibly complex systems. In the words of one author, the universe appears to have been waiting for us to arrive. As long as we as believers agree on Who the Designer is and that we need Him to save us, we can give ourselves grace to understand the details in different ways, and we can look forward to the day when the Designer will tell us how He did His work.

return to Sermons index