DISCUSSIONS AROUND GENESIS 1-3 (III)

TROWEL & SWORD

Dr. K. Runia

This is a six part series, the remaining articles follow on from April to August 1963. Alternatively the six articles can be read as one item by clicking here.

EVOLUTIONISM

A few years ago the Literary Supplement of the (Melbourne) Age featured an article on this subject: "From Ape man to Homo Sapiens (i.e. man as we know him) in a Million Stone-Age Years". The article started as follows:

"Like every living creature man has sprung from humbler origins. The facts of evolution - long past the state of mere theory - accept him as the culmination of a progression which began in primeval seas, perhaps 2000 million years ago. Tribolites, fishes, amphibians, reptiles, dinosaurs, and mammals were his ancestors. Apes and ape-like men have been his immediate forebears, acquiring the knack of tools, fire, hunting skills, speech, and a complex pattern of existence that favoured the brain as the instrument of survival. True man, "homo sapiens", may be as recent as 50,000 years, the last tick of the evolutionary clock.

It is all there in the fossil record - literally in the sands of geological time - for those who would dig. Evolution is hard FACT. No reputable biologist doubts it; indeed it provides the foundation for the whole structure of modern biology. Controversial issues there are still, but they concern details of the COURSE of evolution, never the general truth of the descent of species".

This is the common view of evolution, held by the majority of the scientists, and accepted in popularized form by most non-scientists. "Evolution is hard FACT". The whole universe is the product of an inconceivably long process of evolution, and man is part of it. Man in his whole structure, i.e., not only his body, but his spiritual make-up as well. The same author says:

"Evolutionary pressures which had, very early in his career, led to unique brain development brought also memory, conceptual thought, self-perception, awareness of life and death, curiosity, anxiety, a sense of mystery, belief in a spirit world".

In other words, man's religion, too, is the product of evolution.

CHRISTIAN SCIENTISTS

What do Christian scientists say of this view? Where do they stand? Up to the second world war they generally rejected this whole view as a philosophical and unbiblical construction. The majority of them maintained a vigorous insistence on the full reliability of the Biblical account of origins by special creation.

Since the second world war, however, we can notice an increasing acceptance of the evolution idea on the part of many scientists of orthodox, evangelical persuasion. In the U.S.A., for example, we have the American Scientific Affiliation (A.S.A.), an organization of some 800 evangelical scientists committed to the belief that the Bible is the inspired Word of God. In 1959 Dr. J. Frank Cassell (who in 1962 served as president of the A.S.A. wrote in a surveying article "The Evolution of Evangelical Thought on Evolution":

"In fifteen years we have seen develop in A.S.A. a spectrum of belief in evolution that would have shocked all of us at the inception of our organization. Many still reserve judgment but few, I believe, are able to meet Dr. Mixter's challenge of ,'Show me a better explanation'."

The same development we find in Dr. Lever's book to which we referred in our first article of this series: "Creation and Evolution". He, too, has accepted the evolution idea as the most likely scientific explanation of the miracle of creation. In a sense the very title of Dr. Lever's book is indicative of the great change. When in the past an evangelical theologian or scientist wrote about this subject, the title was almost bound to be: 'Creation OR evolution'. The title of Dr. Lever's book is: 'Creation AND evolution'.

RESERVATIONS

There are, however, still great differences between the Evolutionists and these Christian scientists. The latter do not only reject the whole philosophical back-ground of evolutionism (evolution is an autonomous process without God), but they are also fully aware of the hypothetical character of many aspects of the evolution theory. I do not think that any of them would agree with the above quoted dictum: "Evolution is hard fact".

Dr. Lever, for example, openly admits that in many respects the whole evolution idea is nothing else than a scientific hypothesis. With regard to the origin of life he writes: "One thus comes to the conclusion that we FACTUALLY KNOW NOTHING about the origin of life" (p.52). Concerning the origins of the types or organisms he writes: "From these data one must conclude that it has not been proved definitely that there was a gradual evolution out of one another of the higher categories which can be differentiated in the vegetable and animal kingdoms" (p.94). He himself is of the opinion that the material at hand gives an indication towards the evolution theory, but also says a little further on: "the question about the origin of the phyla, the highest categories, still remains. About this, as we stated, no scientific data are known at all. One should, reasoning from the orthodox Protestant tradition, be inclined to speak here of the 'creation out of nothing'. This cannot be contradicted on the basis of investigation" (p.98). As to the origin of man he writes: "The opinion expressed at times that it has been PROVED that man descended from anthropoids (i.e. man-like beings), lacks a scientific basis" (p. 157).

Yet, in spite of this situation, Dr. Lever himself is inclined to accept evolution as the scientific explanation of the origin of all things. As we have seen before, he even accepts the possibility of man's descent from the animal world. But, of course, he does not accept this in the sense of what we could call 'philosophical evolutionism'. For Dr. Lever it is from the beginning to the end God's work. One could call it a providential evolutionism. He himself speaks of 'creationism'. In the last chapter of his book he clearly indicates the "unbridgeable controversy" between the two views. Says he:

"In all questions of detail we started with the supposition that for the Christian there cannot be any consideration of an autonomous evolution from the one into the other. To the contrary, we have emphasized that all changes fall under the power of God's dominion and direction" (pp.205/206).

We gladly take note of this 'confession of faith', for such it is. Yet we must ask the question: Is even such a creationism or providential evolutionism acceptable for a Christian?

Before answering this question, however, we want to look at the matter FROM THE POINT OF SCIENCE ITSELF. What is the scientific value of such a theory of evolution? Of course, we are not scientists. It is impossible for us to assess all the phenomena and facts mentioned by Dr. Lever and his colleagues. Yet certain things can be observed by the non-scientist.

1. It is a MERE HYPOTHESIS

We should realize that every 'evolution theory' is still very hypothetical in spite of all the apodictic assertions of many scientists and many popular articles in newspapers. It is based on several other hypotheses which have not been proved and perhaps will never be proved. One of the main suppositions is the so-called PRINCIPLE OF UNIFORMITARIANISM, that is, the theory that in all ages there has been uniformity in physical and chemical processes. They always took place in the same way and at the same speed. This theory is, of course, not scientifically proved. As a matter of fact, it can never be proved. It is a philosophical assumption. We must immediately add that from the Christian point of view there is no fundamental objection against this principle. It may well be that this principle is right. There is even much in favour of it. Our God is a God of order. All, the laws of nature have been made by Him and are from moment to moment sustained by Him. Yet it is true, it is scientifically not more than a philosophical assumption, and is by its very nature unprovable.

There are still many scientists who hold a different (also philosophical!) theory, namely, that of CATASTROPHISM. This is the theory that in early times great catastrophes took place, which subverted the whole existing structure of the earth and effected sudden and great changes, which in normal process never might have happened or would have taken millions of years. Of course, it will be hard to prove this theory scientifically. Perhaps we should say that it is impossible. Yet we should not dismiss it too easily and to quickly as fanciful. There is in the Bible a story that clearly points in this direction. I mean the story of the Flood; In Gen. 7:11 we read of the 'fountains of the great deep' that 'burst forth'.

2. DR. CARTER

Non-believing scientists often admit that the theory of evolution is still fraught with great problems. Dr. G.S. Carter, an avowed evolutionist, says in his book "A Hundred Years of Evolution" (1957) that there are, among others, the following difficulties.

Why do all these developments (e.g., of the horse and the elephant) take so long? "We should, at least at first sight, expect selection to produce the optimum size in much shorter periods" (P.174).
Why do they change 'back' again after an original change into a new environment? According to the evolutionist the development was as follows:

fishes

amphibians

                            mammals                                   birds

          Why then did some mammals begin to live in the water again?
          (Whales:)

(c) Why do some animals develop organs which are of no advantage to them? The Irish elk, for example, developed horns of such a length and width that it often got caught in the bushes!
(d) The greatest problem of all is: whence do the 'novelties', that is the great changes in organs, come? The evolution theory is built on the principles that the various beings become gradually more complicated. They develop completely new organs, which never existed before. Whence these novelties? The frank answer is: we do not know anything about it. All solutions offered are "purely hypothetical" (p. 185).

In his concluding chapter Dr. Carter says: "So far as much of evolution is concerned, our theory can only be put forward as a possible, and, we may think, probable explanation, not as demonstrable truth". Yet he has no difficulty in accepting the whole evolutionist philosophy, for to him this is not a matter of fact but of belief. If you do not believe in a Creator, there seems to be no other alternative than the acceptance of this philosophy.

3. DR. CLARK

Many Christian scientists go much further. They do not only point out that there are many gaps in the evidence, but assert that scientifically there are insurmountable objections to an explanation of the universe and of all living organisms on the basis of an evolution theory.

One such scientist is Dr. Robert E.D. Clark, who wrote several books on this subject. It is impossible in the compass of this article to give all his arguments. We may refer the reader to his book "Darwin. Before and After" (1958), which a few years ago was discussed in our magazine by the Rev. J.W. Deenick. It must suffice to give some of his final conclusions.

Dr. Clark distinguishes two different ideas for which the word evolution may stand "

"(1) It may mean that, over a long period of time, species undergo changes without ultimately increasing in complexity. Such changes might be brought about through, natural selection or in some other way and, although anatomically some structures might occasionally appear more complex in later stages of evolution, this might be because certain genes which had previously been recessive had now become dominant. In this sense of the word evolution may be undoubtedly accepted as a fact. There are the strongest possible grounds for believing that the outward forms of living organisms have changed, often considerably, during the course of geological time". (p. 169).

Note. This kind of evolution is nowadays often called MICRO-EVOLUTION
(2) But the word is often used with the suggestion of a radically different idea - the idea that, in some mysterious way, as one generation gives birth to another, a CONSTRUCTIVE process takes place not merely in outward form, but GENETICALLY. It is supposed that new and elaborate mechanisms become added, little by little, to the wonderful molecular structures of the genes and chromosomes by means of which form is handed on from the parents to offspring. It is in this second sense only that evolution is IN HEAD-ON CONFLICT with the basic principles of science" (p. 169).

Note. This kind of evolution is nowadays often called MACRO-EVOIUTION, the theory that the more complicated structures have developed out of the simple structures in a purely natural way.

Later on Dr. Clark comes back on these two kinds of evolution. Again he asserts that micro-evolution is a fact. But as to macro-evolution, the development from one group into another, he writes:

"No amount of contortion (which often takes place) will transform a fish belonging to one group into that of another. Within the group transformation takes place (= micro-evolution), but there is no evidence that evolution can transform the fundamental structures (=macro-evolution)." (p. 179)
"Despite prolonged study, nothing even approaching evolution, in the constructive sense of the word, has ever yet emerged". (p. 180)
"Taken as a whole, the evidence goes to show that the changes which are observed, whether in the laboratory or in the fossil record, are outward only. And outwardly such processes are striking enough. Plants alter their size, the shape of their leaves or the smell of their flowers; insects may lose or gain their wings, their eyes or other parts or their anatomy. With animals it is harder to experiment, but there is little reason to doubt that here, too, great changes in form are possible and, that, in the course of ages, one species may turn into another - as indeed has probably happened among horses and titanotheres. All this may be granted (= micro-evolution again) and yet, underneath, the fundamental protein patterns remain the same" (p. 181).

CONCLUSION

From all the foregoing it is quite clear how uncertain all these theories are, even from the purely scientific point of view. Even a non-scientist can see that they are to a large extent, perhaps we should say: for 99.99, purely hypothetical, being founded on assumptions which are not proved and cannot be proved (principle of uniformity). All the major gaps, the real fundamental gaps are still unbridged as far as the actual evidence goes, and most likely will never be bridged, except by new hypotheses.

In other words, as Christians we should not be overawed by the claims of science on this point. We should definitely not reject all evolution. There is a certain amount going on, even today (micro-evolution). Perhaps we should leave room for much more evolution than we now can imagine. Yet we should be aware of the fact that an explanation of the universe, of life, of the diversity of organisms on the basis of mere evolution (albeit under the constant providential guidance of God is altogether HYPOTHETICAL and UNLIKELY, even from the purely scientific point of view.

NEXT ARTICLE

In the next article we will turn to the message of the Bible in the early chapters of Genesis.

All reports of problems and comments concerning this site: webmaster@trowelandsword.org.au

Privacy