Evolution

PREAMBLE

I love talking evolution. Maybe it's because I'm a Christian who firmly supports it or maybe just because there's so much to talk about. Whatever the reason, I love thinking about it, and when I get the chance, debating it with skeptics. What brings the issue to the front of my mind now is a billboard I passed while driving with some co-workers. It was an advertisement for a church with a series of images showing the evolution of man with a big red X through it. I think evolution to be a topic of little importance regarding Christianity but in this case it seems to be very important in that it is deterring people from the Church. This is nothing less than the Great Commission sullied by someone's foolish pride. What a terrible way to try and save souls! Instead of preaching steadfast love and forgiveness - this billboard0 only harps that a wide-spread secular belief is inconsistent with Christianity. My co-workers response? They couldn't understand why someone would pay for such an ineffective billboard and were shocked to think that there's anyone left who still thinks evolution is not true (neither are Christians). To me, this just emphasizes how out-of-touch many Christians have become with the secular world to which they were called to live.

INTRODUCTION

Evolution seems to be way more controversial than it truly deserves. I don't quite understand why it is so common for Christians to be so easily rankled by this theory rather than accept it like everyone else. Does it really matter one way or another? For me, there are far more issues other than evolution that make me want to argue my point. How about whether God exists? Surely more important than evolution - but maybe the key here is that it's not as easy to argue.

Now, I admit - evolution debates get me pretty hyped up. I'm not sure why, but it just bothers me so much when people "don't believe" in evolution. You don't believe in evolution? That sounds like putting evolution on the same level as some new religion. It's not something you have faith in. It's scientific fact. If you are currently interjecting that it's only a theory, understand that when people say evolution is a theory they mean a scientific theory. A scientific theory means it has been tested and reviewed in such detail that it is accepted as fact. The question remains then, what proof is there for evolution that it is considered a known fact?

EVIDENCE

The greatest proof, in my opinion, is how much proof there is and continues to be. Everyday more evidence mounts to support it - from real-time evolution in the Galapagos to an ever increasing fossil record, it's just overwhelming. Then there is the simple fact that since the theory was first proposed in the mid 1800s it has not been disproved. This is huge! Of all the people who violently opposed this theory - not one of them has produced anything to cast even a doubt on this theory. Not to mention that the real scientists (sorry Creationists) aren't out to provide proof for evolution, they are actually analyzing the evidence (experiments, new discoveries, etc.). They too, could have disproved this theory. With all these people out to potentially bring down the evolution theory - it's pretty convincing evidence that it's stronger today than ever before.

So let's talk about the proof in more depth. I don't really want to go into too much detail because honestly, you can just read a textbook if that's what you're looking for. Evolution used to be banned in schools but, according to one of my college professors, it was reintroduced once the U.S. realized its national education in Science was outdated compared to Russia. I think it's far more interesting to discuss the theory of evolution in vague philosophical ways but hey - everyone needs a little evidence now and again.

Okay, fossil record first of all since it has consistently been prominent in the evolution debate since the very beginning. The fossil record is remarkable - consider how long these soft tissues, impressions, and bones have been preserved; they have survived despite the fact that for the most part all these things are incredibility decomposable. In spite of this, the fossil record is often ragged on as being incomplete. Well, it is. This doesn't mean evolution is wrong, what a stupid argument. The entire fossil record that we have (which is considerable) supports the theory, and more fossils are discovered all the time. Some particularly complete fossil collections are that of the modern day horse evolution and the fish to tetrapod transition. I encourage anyone to do some research on the fossils that have been discovered, they are simply amazing.

Microevolution is the most commanding piece of evidence for me. Microevolution is simply evolution within a species, so as opposed to the controversial 'monkey to man' transition (macroevolution) this is simply a species of monkey changing over time. Microevolution doesn't really differ that much from macroevolution, simply put macroevolution is just a bunch of microevolutions strung together. The line between closely related species is very vague in any case. Most people believe in microevolution, probably because (unlike macroevolution) it is proven, as in some scientists can sit in a lab and show that it happens (with fruit flies, bacteria, and such) or watch it happen in the field (check out the research of Peter and Rosemary Grant in their various scientific articles or in The Beak of the Finch). So, what's stopping macroevolution from occuring. Doesn't it make sense if an organism undergoes several microevolutions that over time it would undergo macroevolution? I'll concede that perhaps not if the world was only a few thousand years old - but I don't even want to get into that right now, seeing as how that age is completely ungrounded in actual fact and goes against all the actual evidence on the matter.

I'll give just one more argument for why evolution must be true. It is thought that 99.9% of species that ever existed are now extinct (that fact straight from PBS). While the earth is a vast expanse in the eyes of a single human being, it's simply not big enough for all those species to have lived together at one time. Think about today, how each individual ecosystem has a balance of species where if many more were added it would all fall apart (think Invasive Species). Resources just aren't plentiful enough to provide for dinosaurs, birds, and mammals all at the same time. It's just cramming a bunch of predators, competitors, and prey together in too small a space. Why would God create the earth too small for all its organisms? Does it make sense for God to design the world in such a way that almost everything dies nearly instantly (if we're assuming that the earth began around the time of the Egyptian empire)? For that matter, why aren't Christians more upset about extinction if they believe it is neither natural nor that these species will be replaced with newly evolved species? God put man in charge of all the creatures in the world (Genesis 1). It seems to be in bad form then to cause their extinction.

While on the topic of what God would do. It doesn't make sense to me that God would create magnificent Laws of Nature (think Laws of Thermodynamics or Isaac Newton), which work in such intricate ways to keep the whole Universe in balance, and then instead of using what he already created he just 'poofs' things into existence. It's like a master sculptor creating a work out of clay, then decorating with children's glitter paint. Yes, it's possible (I don't want to ever insinuate that anything is impossible for God) but it's unlikely. The world is a breath-taking work of art, sometimes we forget this simple truth because we are so used to living here. It seems unlikely to me that God would disdain working within the laws He created and use magical means to make the creatures. I think it makes more sense that God would cause organisms to evolve rather than flicking His wrist and pulling rabbits out of thin air. Yes, in Genesis the Bible specifically says that the world (all creatures included) were made in six days but the Bible also says that "with the Lord a day is like a thousand years" (2 Peter 3:8, NIV). Who says that Genesis is literal anyway? Much of it sounds rather poetic to me. Why then isn't there anything about evolution in the Bible? Probably the same reason why the sun is described as a "great light" rather than explained to be a massive ball of burning gas.

CONCLUSION

Someone once told me that Christians who believe in evolution are just moderating both beliefs, trying to have both worlds and really having neither. Many think you can only believe in Christianity or evolution, that they are mutually exclusive. I have no clue why anyone would think this. Evolution doesn't disprove God, neither does God disprove evolution. So what's the problem here? I "believe" in the theory of evolution and I have put my faith in Jesus Christ as my Saviour. It's worked out fine for me so far. None of my Biblical studies have led me to doubt evolution and none of my scientific learnings have led me to doubt the Trinity. I see then no reason why Christians must disagree with the theory of evolution or why scientists can't be Christian. So, I guess my challenge to anyone of either side would be to have a more open mind and actually look at the evidence available.