Housekeeping

Those who know me have experienced many occasions where I will burst into a dramatic soliloquy against the current state of affairs in the war between evolution and creation. It is not entirely unexpected as I tend to have a buildup until my thoughts can no longer be contained. It would be dishonest of me to say my ire is not predominantly trained on the evolution side of the conversation, but the creationists (particularly arguments of irreducible complexity) rarely get off without taking a few blows. What unites each of these hybridized lectures and tirades is a deep and intense disappointment. It is not that I despise either side or think their arguments are wrong; it is a profound dissatisfaction in the focus of these arguments and the careless way in which they are made.

Before getting into the meat of this article, I suppose some talk of credentials should be in order. My degrees are in molecular and cellular biology (MCB) and ecology and evolutionary biology (EEB). This is an overly technical jumble of jargon which consolidates most clearly (in my experience) as “I study genetics at the level of individuals and populations”. My primary research focus is the genetics of rare diseases and RNA splicing mechanisms, but in all my work, evolution plays a vital role in developing a better and clearer understanding of the phenomena I study.

While my research focus leans more heavily on MCB, what occupies my mind most while I wait for code to run and cells to grow is evolution theory. This requires some clarification. What I mean by “evolution theory” is not strictly constructing narratives of development over time. This is certainly a core component (I enjoy knowing how certain processes arise in different taxa). What I mean is the development and evaluation of broad paradigms that seek to explain the diversity and similarity we see in the tree of life, the mechanisms by which they arise, and the philosophical implications and underpinnings of each theory. I am by no means an expert on the matter, but I have been deeply engaged in this work for 7 years in varying capacities.

As a geneticist, one of my primary concerns is mechanism. This may begin to rear its ugly head as we dive into the details of evolution and where I see the limitations of certain theories. These concerns are not based on what we currently do not know or understand about genetics; these concerns stem directly from what is known. What I see as an endemic issue in the field of evolutionary biology is that explanatory mechanisms that are proposed are unsatisfying, not that they are unreasonable or unsupported by science. This will be discussed in more detail in the main text, but more often than not, the narratives surrounding how processes and structures have evolved over time operate are assumed rather than tested. (This is not a limitation of the scientists, but rather the field.)

The last bit of housekeeping before jumping into the weeds of semantics is that this piece is not intended to prove or disprove evolution as a whole. What I intend to do here is outline the primary issues I see arise in these conversations regarding evolution and creation. I will address assumptions and presuppositions, the philosophical underpinnings of different evolutionary theories, and ultimately, I hope to provide at least a few tidbits that may clarify the issue for both creationists and evolutionists. In pursuit of transparency, I will wrap up this introduction by trying to explain where I stand in this debate.

If you were to ask me if I was an evolutionist or creationist, I would have to respond with “depends on who you ask and what day it is.” This is not to say that I bounce back and forth between the two camps on a whim, but rather to illustrate that my position is a middle ground that depends on the context of the conversation. I do not reject evolution as a force that brings about substantial change; what I reject is the Darwinian proposal that life progresses randomly, with no purpose or intent. In other words, I affirm a deep and ever-present telos in biology. This means that an evolutionary theory that has a teleological understanding of biology is one that I happily support, with conditions. Process structuralism is an example of this. I also do not reject that Darwinian processes play a role in the diversification of populations; what I reject is that Darwinian processes have the explanatory scope and power to address the numerous issues that have been pointed out by theists and atheists alike. I do not reject that there is scientific reason to accept these theories; what I reject is that evolutionary biology is a purely scientific field and not one steeped in philosophy since its origins. I could write extensively more on my beliefs, but since these are not the primary topics of this piece, I will leave it there. In the main text of this article, I hope you will see that as skeptical as I am about certain areas of evolutionary science, I am equally if not more disappointed in the counter from the creationists.

Assumptions and Presuppositions

It would be an oversight to not begin with the quite obvious observation that assumptions and presuppositions play a significant role in the ongoing dialogue between creation and evolution. What is clear at the beginning of each of these debates is that each participant brings a mound of philosophical and theological baggage to the table and pretends to leave it behind. This is not unique to the realm of evolutionary biology. As discussed in a previous article, at the doors to the lab, one is expected to assume atheism as the default position. Neil deGrasse Tyson often claims that in order to do good science, one must ignore their theological inclinations. This may be fine in some research pursuits such as molecular biology or medicine, but in evolutionary biology we must come to terms with the fact that atheism is far from a neutral claim.

Without going into the very deep history of the convergence of theology and science, it can be clearly seen that having a theistic worldview is not by default an inhibition on the quality of science we can do. In fact, many have argued that the very theological outlook that Tyson decries is necessary to do quality science. Examples abound of titans in every field referencing their faith as intimately involved in their science, improving their ability to describe and understand the natural order. I would add my own minuscule weight to that sum. This is relevant because, as will be discussed later, many of the conclusions drawn in evolution vs creation debates are dependent entirely on what you assume about the nature of God and the universe. By assuming a default worldview of atheism, evolutionary biologists are restricting the possible conclusions they may come to.

A brief history lesson is required to understand why this is relevant. Darwin’s original proposed evolutionary mechanism was – in essence – a rejection of teleology in biology. It was not novel in its proposal of related species, nor was it novel in the idea of descent with modification. What Darwin proposed was a random, undirected, unguided process through which the incredibly diverse history of life developed. The scientific merits of this proposal were not what sparked the ire of the religious class. The philosophical implications of a world in which God was not actively working and sustaining His creation were the sticking point. This would be further exacerbated by The Descent of Man, which proposed that human beings were not a unique creation and were instead an incredibly developed descendant of animalistic hominids. One can clearly see why the religious institutions of the 19^th century were so antagonistic to this idea.

The scientific community would originally embrace Darwin’s proposal of natural selection as the primary mechanism, but this wouldn’t become the dominant theory until the 1930s and 40s. It would be a misstep to fail to point out that over the 70 years from the original proposal to its rising popularity, the religious inclinations of the scientific community drifted further from a classical theism to a skeptical deism and atheism. These shifts were not driven primarily by scientific arguments, but rather philosophical and cultural movements. That being said, the scientific developments did make Darwin’s proposal more credible, particularly with the incorporation of genetics into early evolutionary theories. Darwin’s proposal would impact more than the biological sciences; if biology had no teleology in it, then certainly other fields would not. Physics and chemistry would follow suit and break with the historical view that every field of science was deeply teleological.

This idea would be challenged many times throughout the 20^th century, with the cosmological anthropic principles being the most famous. The return of teleology would begin in chemistry, particularly looking at water and carbon dioxide, and continue with human blood acting as a buffer system. When these discoveries were first published, few were willing to engage with the philosophical implications: if there is teleology in chemistry, there must be teleology elsewhere; if there is teleology in nature, there must be a creator. This in conjunction with the rise of young earth creationism and anti-science fundamentalism in the United States of America unnecessarily drew the battle lines along Darwin’s proposal: if Darwin was correct, there could be no teleology and therefore no God; if Darwin was incorrect, there is teleology and therefore God.

What needs to be emphasized here is that while evolution is not necessarily rejected by classical theism, Darwinian evolution rejects classical theism (and therefore design) by necessity. The theist is in a unique situation where the claim that there is a Creator increases the hypotheses that can be generated to be tested and the explanations that can be held, while Darwinian evolution forces itself into a corner where there must be a naturalistic explanation. In the debate between evolution and creation, a wise creationist will be willing and able to acknowledge when evolutionary mechanisms are at play, while the evolutionist can accept no other explanation for their conclusions.

The fundamental presupposition of Darwinian evolution is a lack of teleology. This is not true of all potential evolutionary theories. Therefore, if a classical theist is limited only by the belief that there must be teleology in nature, the classical theist is perfectly capable of accepting that theory (as in the case of process structuralism). However, that same theory for the evolutionist requires the rejection of either their atheism and the Darwinian paradigm or a rejection of that theory based on philosophical necessity. It quickly becomes apparent that the driving force in evolutionary biology is not scientific, but rather philosophical and theological. This becomes clearer in the way that evolutionary research is performed and communicated (more on this later).

Further complicating the matter is the very real evidence for natural selection as a mechanism through which populations diversify, adapt, and eventually develop into distinct species. (No, I will not be getting into that debate right now. Species definitions are all insufficient and I don’t have the word count for that topic.) Darwin was indeed correct that natural selection plays a vital role in the change of a population over time, but this has led to the assumption that this process is sufficient to explain the entire history of life. In assuming this, one assumes that chemical evolution leading to origin of life, the transition from unicellular to multicellular life, and that the great diversification events of the Avalon and Cambrian explosion can all be explained through Darwinian processes. There is an improper assumption that because Darwinian evolution is true at one level, it is true at every level. This assumption is rarely properly addressed, and a closer look at this reveals the scientific consensus is not as unanimous as many believe.

Debates on the topic tend to play out as an unstoppable force meeting an immovable object because of these assumptions and presuppositions. Most of those who engage in these debates focus primarily on the science, failing to understand that their debate is at the convergence of science and philosophy. Creationists begin to make arguments they believe to be compelling scientific arguments (such as irreducible complexity) only to be met with a scientific rebuttal that is reasonable and a claim that they are making a God of the Gaps type argument. An evolutionist will claim that the similarity between the species in genetic sequence, form, and behavior supports common descent which will be neatly rejected by the creationist as evidence that also supports common design. The same song and dance plays out each time, with neither party addressing the other’s challenges in a meaningful way. A question will eventually coalesce: how do we get past the noise of these debates and make real progress in communicating with each other? How do we effectively challenge the opposing viewpoint in an honest and comprehensive way? The answer is simple and will delight or depress you: semantics!

The Power of Semantics

For many, the idea of a semantic debate evokes images of torture. For others (like me), a good semantic debate hits like whatever drug you wish to fill in here. Unfortunately, a lack of semantic clarification in the evolution debate leads to a dead-end conversation where no progress has been made, both parties are frustrated, and someone is inevitably more confused than when they started. The presuppositions above are difficult enough to break through in either direction, but this rapidly compounds when imprecise arguments are made. This section will address some of the common arguments that are effectively sidestepped by relying on vague language.

The first is, unsurprisingly, the issue of micro- versus macro-evolution. Everyone has heard a creationist proclaim they accept the former but reject the latter. Proponents of evolution readily reply that macro is just micro over time. This apt response points out how inane this belief is. Imagine if someone were to say, “I believe that a 100-meter race can exist, but I refuse to believe that a 15-kilometer race can exist.” Obviously, a 15-kilometer race can exist because it is simply 150 100-meter races consecutively! Sure, it will be more challenging and will take longer, but it is perfectly reasonable to accept the existence of a 15-kilometer race. The same can be said about macro-evolution. It is certainly more difficult (and less likely) for these significant changes to occur over enough time, but it is perfectly reasonable to believe that the steady accumulation of small changes will inevitably reach a point where there are significant changes in a species.

Of course, this isn’t what is meant by the creationist who rejects macro-evolution. The hypothetical proponent of evolution who just threw this response in the face of the creationist is celebrating a certain victory and showing the audience that the views held by the creationist are not just unscientific, but are on the logical level of a kindergartener who cannot fathom a 30-scoop ice cream sundae (yes it exists; yes I have consumed one with many friends; no it is not worth it). Any self-respecting audience would laugh at this exchange, but the creationist’s actual contention has not been addressed. By framing this argument as micro- versus macro-, the creationist has done themselves a disservice and allowed the evolutionist to elegantly side-step a challenge that is actually significant.

What is meant more often than not is that the creationist rejects the idea that Darwinian processes invent and are sufficient to explain the incredible explosion of body plans in different speciation events throughout life history. This critique is not unique to theists; Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge rejected Darwinian evolution in favor of what they called punctuated equilibrium. They based their rejection on the fossil record, but the underlying claim was that natural selection does not behave in a way that matches what is observed in the fossil record (more on this later). Of course, this understanding of Darwinian processes is faithful to Darwin’s original proposal: natural selection is in essence a conservative force. What the creationist is intending to argue is that they accept Darwin’s idea for what it originally entails—that is, natural selection impacts the phenotypic diversity of populations in response to environmental stimuli, reproductive fitness, and inheritance—but rejects the idea that natural selection is capable of progressively inventing novel body plans, novel genes, and novel molecular systems (there is substantially more support in the scientific literature for this claim than most believe, and not just limited to “intelligent design” researchers).

This semantic clarification shifts the debate from what appears to be an infantile rationale to one that is quite nuanced and is supported by other atheist scientists. There is also a greater understanding of evolution shown in expressing it as a mechanism that is conservative rather than creative. Natural selection can only work on what is there, and it preserves what works. It cannot predict future changes, and it cannot account for environmental changes before they happen. Now, evolution is not a static force; there is motion to it through the introduction of novel genotypes in an individual and eventually a population, which allow natural selection to act on these. This is where the second semantic clarification must occur.

In the 20^th century, there was a synthesis of Mendelian genetics with Darwinian evolution, allowing for the theory to become more widely accepted. In this synthesis, it was predicted that mutations were responsible for these changes over time, and that these mutations were mostly random, and beneficial more often than deleterious. The term that requires the most focus in this case is “random”. The creationist often will claim that mutations are random, and therefore the likelihood of mutations accumulating over time in a meaningful way is incredibly unlikely statistically. Now, this argument is on its surface incorrect. There are strong mutational biases for A>G and T>C shifts (and their inverse) compared to shifts from G/A>T/C. There are also stretches of the genome where mutations are more likely to occur. But this once again misses the substance of the argument the creationist is putting forth.

The argument that should be clarified is that the timing and host of these mutations are random. While the nucleotide shifts and the genomic location are non-random, the germ cells (ova and sperm) that these mutations occur in and when they occur are (mostly) random. This actually brings two points of contention to bear on Darwinian processes: non-random processes imply telos and mutations that occur in random individuals require substantially more time to become a major allele in a population. The evolutionist now needs to address the presence of direction within mutations while holding to a paradigm that rejects teleology and is presented with a major stumbling block to evolutionary explanations (for the purposes of this article, I will avoid expanding on the time argument against Darwinian processes).

Another aspect of genetic mutations that is poorly communicated is the frequency of deleterious mutations compared to beneficial mutations. The vast majority of mutations have little to no impact on phenotypes. This is due to a variety of factors, including the degeneracy of genetics and the vast stretches of non-coding genomic sequences. Mutations that have little to no impact on phenotypes are under no selective pressure and therefore accumulate in genomes so that on average, each person will have 4-5 million polymorphisms compared to the reference genome. The marginal impact is a double-edged sword: while the evolutionist can use this as an example of accumulated genetic evolution over time, the creationist can argue that because these mutations have no impact on the phenotype then these mutations should be excluded when calculating mutation rate from generation to generation. Both of these are valid arguments, but without clarifying what is meant by mutations in making arguments for or against evolution, it is far too easy for either party to claim the other is incorrect without addressing the substance of the argument.

The next term that is thrown around and either ignored or celebrated is the transition form. Transitional forms are understood to be physiological structures, molecular processes, or genes that are in the process of becoming something new. Often, this argument is dismissed because of creatures like Archaeopteryx, which is a species of bird-like dinosaur thought to be a transition between reptile and bird. This rebuttal is fine and establishes a species that is potentially somewhere between a reptile and a bird, but it does not address the argument itself. Here, a clarification needs to be made between transitional forms and intermediate forms. The latter is a species, protein, or process that is stable on its own, with all aspects useful and fully developed. However, transitional forms are those which have a partially functional, evolving structure. An argument could be made that the pelvic bones of whales are a transitional form, but recent work in marine mammalogy has shown these bones are still actively used to help with reproduction, making them intermediate and not transitional. Pseudogenes are another possible example of transitional forms, but many pseudogenes have been shown to have a functional role in cellular contexts, making them intermediate and not transitional.

This particular semantic point may be open to accusations of moving goalposts and setting arbitrary cutoffs for what is and is not transitional versus intermediate. However, the definition remains the same for each case: an incompletely developed physiological structure, genetic sequence, or molecular process that is not stable and fully functional on its own. Intermediate forms exist at all levels, which most creationists will happily grant, but these do not act as supporting evidence for Darwinian gradualism alone. Common design arguments may come into play here, but more simply, these forms act as evidence for process structuralism and punctuated equilibrium.

These are only a few of the loaded terms that require extra care in these debates. As shown, without working to define the argument, both evolutionists and creationists are disadvantaged. When discussing the validity of either conclusion, it is crucial that precise language is used, particularly when arguing over mechanisms. In many cases, getting a clear definition of the terms will make the conversation more fruitful and will improve both parties’ arguments since they will be heard. The rest of this article is devoted to exploring arguments that are less effective, frameworks that may be more effective, and the importance of good philosophy in the evolutionary debate.

Gaps and Reduction

One of the hot topics in creation circles is the idea of irreducible complexity. This stems from Darwin’s own writing that if any system were shown to be unable to develop in a step-by-step manner, then that would counter his theory. There has been an abundance of work done in this area from scientists with different worldviews, to varying degrees of success and respect. Historically, physiological structures such as the bacterial flagellum and the eye have been argued to be “irreducibly complex”.

Rather than evaluate the scientific merit of these studies, I would like to address the various limitations of this line of argument. First, a focus on the creationist. Irreducible complexity is a style of argument that relies on proving that the irreducibility of a system is due to known complexity, not due to ignorance of how it might have come to develop. This is, in effect, an intellectual throwing up of the hands and giving up on trying to explain how something might have developed. There is a strong bias to evaluate different reasonable explanations and then stop, insisting that the cursory review is sufficient. In other words, this argument punishes creativity and scientific exploration by rigging the game to adhere to your presuppositions. This is the danger of failing to understand what is precluded by evolution being true.

Irreducible complexity is often scoffed at because there are poor arguments made and often what was once thought as irreducibly complex has been shown to be reducible. This argument is on precarious ground from the beginning because it relies on limited creativity and ignorance. If your entire view of evolution has a foundation on irreducible complexity, with each new discovery that pushes the reducibility of a system further, your view of evolution will eventually shatter. In case it is not clear by this point, rejection of Darwinian evolution is not strictly dependent on whether there are features that are irreducibly complex.

Another reason irreducible complexity is ignored is because it is viewed as untestable. The central claim of irreducible complexity is a null hypothesis (I’ll avoid the statistics lesson I want to give here, but if you’re more interested in statistical language around hypotheses, my article “The Null Religion” is a more detailed review of null and alternative hypotheses). This is important because the way science works is by rejecting alternative hypotheses, not affirming them. Irreducible complexity is, by nature, the claim that all other possible explanations are rejected. In order to prove a system is irreducibly complex, all other explanations would have to be rejected. The limiting factor here is our creativity as scientists and not the number of possible hypotheses. Of course, there is much to be said about likelihood in these arguments. As the number of rejected proposed mechanisms increase, the likelihood that the system is irreducibly complex increases. This can be a powerful inductive argument, but it needs to be emphasized that this line of thinking is viewed as thoroughly unscientific because it does not appear to propose a testable hypothesis.

On the other hand, evolutionists are not free from criticism in the arguments over irreducible complexity. One of the major limitations of evolutionary biology is that it is not a methodological science. There are subdisciplines of evolutionary biology that are methodological, such as population genetics, but these are insufficient to fully inform theory of evolution. This does not mean that evolutionary biology is in any way a lesser science than, say, molecular biology (to claim that would be self-sabotage considering my degrees in both), but rather the way we learn in evolutionary biology is much more flexible than other fields. There is a tendency to accept proposed narratives and explanations so long as they are reasonable and achieve the goals of the researcher, even if there is limited experimental or observational data to back it up.

Take, for example, symbiogenesis, which seeks to describe how prokaryotes (single cell organisms without a nucleus) evolved into eukaryotes (organisms with a nucleus and other membrane-bound organelles). This theory states that a prokaryotic cell consumed another smaller prokaryote and, rather than being metabolized, a symbiotic relationship formed between the two cells. Over time the genome of one cell reduced until they were fully dependent on each other, and the membrane-bound organelles were fully incorporated into a eukaryotic cell. This narrative is convenient and is able to explain the presence of mitochondrial DNA and genomic DNA held within the nucleus and a number of other features that could suggest a fusion of two prokaryotes. However, in order to accept this narrative, basic prokaryotic biology would need to be entirely discarded. This theory produces far more questions than it answers, such as how does the smaller prokaryote escape digestion, how do their life cycles then align so division occurs around the same time, and does the exchange and eventual reduction of genetic material not result in catastrophic failure of either system? The explanatory scope and power are limited.

This is not to say that scientific breakthroughs should never result in more questions than they answer, but in this case (and many others), the narrative is a bit too convenient and relies on a rejection of what is known. Arguments against symbiogenesis do not rely on what we do not know (as is often the case in irreducible complexity), but rather that what we do know and observe in prokaryotic cell metabolism and development indicate this narrative is insufficient to explain the transition from prokaryotic to eukaryotic cells.

Unfortunately, this is a feature of evolutionary biology. In evolutionary biology, far more often than not, we are confronted with an end point without the process. To interject with a more relatable example before getting into a scientific one, consider navigation while watching your favorite movie on DVD. There are your play/pause, fast forward, and rewind buttons which all allow you to see the sequence of events over the course of a scene. There are also the next and previous scene buttons which jump to the beginning of either the next or preceding scenes without showing you the process by which you get there. Imagine watching a movie by only navigating with those two buttons and the play/pause. You would be able to put together a series of snapshots of the plot, and could potentially guess at the broader plot beats of each scene, but you can’t confidently say the step-by-step processes that get from timepoint A to timepoint B.

This is very similar to how we do evolutionary biology research: putting together a proposed narrative using “still-frames” over life history. Looking at features of our genomes and molecular systems, we know that they are here, and therefore they must have come from somewhere. This is where the assumption that Darwinian evolution is true is a significant detriment to our ability to do and communicate science. Since the feature is extant, and it must have arisen through Darwinian processes, we create a narrative that assumes what it is trying to prove. These narratives become accepted in the scientific literature and the case for Darwinian gradualism develops a façade where its arguments are based on circular narratives that shoehorn a Darwinian explanation into the process because it must.

This is a major flaw in the stability of Darwinism; by claiming that all life’s biodiversity can arise through Darwinian processes, it puts itself in a position where only a single counterpoint is sufficient to tear it down (this is, of course, an issue with atheism as a whole, where if only a single miracle is shown to be true, then atheism cannot be). Take irreducible complexity as an example. The creationist is under no obligation to reject theism if every system is shown to be reducible. In fact, every system being reducible may increase their allegiance to classical theism if they hold to the idea that God’s created order is able to be fully understood and known. However, the (atheist) evolutionist is in a position where if even one system is shown to be irreducibly complex, they have to not only throw out their scientific position, but their entire worldview. If the evolutionist is indeed a theist, they would need to reject their scientific position, but their theology would not be significantly altered (although I would expect their view of God’s immanence to increase). This is a tenuous position to hold, and relies on improperly understanding the phrase “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence”. While there may still be possible explanations for reducing a system, after a certain number of explanations have been rejected, it becomes quite petulant to insist that the likelihood of design is still less than the likelihood of descent. While the evolutionist should not necessarily shift their opinion of evolution based on this observation, it should give pause to anyone who sees value in avoiding extreme claims such as “all systems are reducible”, particularly since the opponent in this hypothetical debate is under no such restrictions.

Of course, it would be unfair to point out the shortcomings of irreducible complexity as an argument from ignorance without also discussing the evolutionist’s version: the fossil record. When Darwin first published On the Origin of Species, he was painfully aware of significant gaps in the fossil record. He predicted that the fossil record would continue to be filled out and that the visible evidence of gradual changes would become more apparent. To put it bluntly, this prediction was wrong. While certain intermediate species have indeed been discovered and the fossil record has expanded to address a number of the early limitations of Darwin’s claims, the fundamental issue is that this very record shows static species. As we have expanded the fossil record, the pressure placed on Darwinian gradualism has increased because there appear to be insignificant changes in every species from their origin to their extinction.

Let this sink in. The Darwinian process is entirely dependent on gradual changes accumulating over time. This is precisely how adaptation works and species adapt to environmental influences. In order for Darwin’s proposal to be correct, these changes must accumulate over time and result in gradual, step-by-step changes over the course of a species’ existence. This does not appear to be reflected in the fossil record. This does not mean that we reject evolution wholesale, but it does put pressure on the chosen mechanism. To be fully transparent, this argument is not one that is made simply by creationists. This observation of the fossil record’s inability to produce gradual change in even a few species that result in an eventual novel species was so prominent and damning to a pair of agnostic paleontologists who supported evolution as a theory, that they rejected Darwinian gradualism as the explanatory process for life’s history and proposed punctuated equilibrium. Punctuated equilibrium has flaws, but where it is strongest is that it is well supported by the known fossil record.

One can certainly make the argument that these claims are invalid critiques because we are constantly finding new fossils. One may argue, much as Darwin did, that eventually these fossils that support gradualism will be found. These arguments should be made with caution and an appropriate level of self-awareness. This claim is not simply “I believe in spite of lack of evidence” but is in a similar category to a “God of the gaps” argument and is one founded in faith. Remember that scientific models are based on known evidence, not potential evidence or predictions that have yet to be supported in a meaningful way.

To conclude this section, I would like to be clear in what my intent is. I do not mean to tear down these arguments, but to point out that the weight of many of these arguments is not as substantial as either camp believes. I claim no special privilege in my evaluation of these arguments, but what appears to be the case is that both sides rely on evidence that has significant gaps. In the case of irreducible complexity, I fail to see how these are satisfying because in most instances, these are based on what we do not know. As a scientist, there are certainly ways to test for design, but irreducible complexity does not do this. I fall into the camp that irreducible complexity is a pseudoscience, but I don’t think the grander goal of intelligent design research is a pseudoscience. On the other hand, arguments for Darwinian gradualism that dismiss the fossil record as an obstacle rely unnecessarily on the hope that future work will uncover supporting evidence. I do not think this position is a scientifically rigorous one, and to be satisfied with hand-waving a strong enough challenge that a new model for evolution was proposed runs counter to the scientific endeavor.

I also would like to be clear that these two arenas are symptoms of a larger problem. Most conversations revolve around arguments that are either epistemically unsound or so dependent on worldview presuppositions that no one is willing to budge on these matters. This gets to the heart of the problem: when arguing over Darwinian processes specifically, we are not having a scientific conversation, but a philosophical, teleological, and theological one. I will discuss this in greater detail later in this article, but first, we will consider the idea of upstream and downstream arguments.

Downstream and Upstream Arguments

Irreducible complexity and the fossil record should both be considered downstream arguments. These are ultimately inconsequential because they deal with specific aspects of certain evolutionary proposals but fail to address the primary contention with Darwin’s proposal. By framing these as downstream arguments, both creationists and evolutionists can improve their arguments and their explanatory models by considering what is most consequential to the Darwinian paradigm. Stephen Jay Gould did this extensively in his many writings on evolution. Again, Gould was far from a creationist, but he had many issues with Darwinian evolution because he found that the grander claims – those “upstream” arguments – were unsatisfactorily addressed. Similarly, proponents of process structuralism are unsatisfied with the upstream claims of Darwin based on scientific evidence.

Darwin’s proposal, and what evolution is dependent on, is that the interaction between our genes and environment leads to changes in populations over time to fill open niches (that is, roles in an ecosystem) through constant competition over resources and reproduction. These changes are “random” in the sense that “if we rewound history to the dawn of complex life, erased prior events, and let evolution run forward again” we would not get the same outcomes, to borrow Gould’s thought experiment. This gets at two things: there is a historical contingency of evolution where a minor change in past events will inevitably result in disparate outcomes and that the evolutionary process radiates out and does not converge on certain forms. The latter of these points is the inspiration for process structuralism due to the extensive convergence of forms in the evolutionary record (crabs in particular. The ultimate evolutionary goal is to turn everything into crabs.)

It is adequate, in my eyes, to argue against the Darwinian narrative through irreducible complexity to challenge the idea of step-by-step development of all forms, but this argument is limited in scope and ambition. Why not just target the head? The issue at hand here is not the reducibility, but the telos, intent, direction, and purpose of life’s developments. With this framing, the reducibility of a complex does not necessarily support a Darwinian process. You can abandon the epistemically unstable ground of irreducible complexity and work to show that these complexes are indeed reducible, but the process by which they arise runs counter to Darwinian logic. In other words, identify the blueprint for the complex and show that the only way for it to have come about does not necessarily provide competitive advantages at each point or that the development of the complex is contingent on evolution “predicting” future pitfalls and proactively evolving a defense. (Giraffes may be an interesting case study here but I digressed enough with my crabs.)

When we get caught up in downstream arguments, we also tend to misidentify powerful arguments. For far too long, creationists have made the argument that evolution must happen through a “random” process and construct various thought experiments intended to show the irrationality or improbability of the evolution of genes through mutations. The easy response to this is that mutations are not random as discussed previously, and the evolutionist feels they’ve dismissed a juvenile argument that should carry no weight. I agree with them; this is an ill-advised argument because it lacks ambition and perspective. The very fact that there are rules that guide mutation frequency, types, and location in the genome disrupts Darwin’s proposal by introducing telos to the evolutionary paradigm.

Similarly, Gould and Eldredge get entrenched in an argument over the specifics of the fossil record. They argue there are too many gaps, periods of stasis followed by rapid speciation abound, and there does not appear to be a steady march of change. While this is a challenge, it fails to hit its mark because of the limitations of paleontology. Fossilization is rare; finding fossils is rarer. This argument is also easily sidestepped by working bottom up: we see minor phenotypic changes in extant species so these mutations accumulate until there is a rapid and drastic shift in the physiology of the species. By targeting a point further upstream, punctuated equilibrium becomes a more substantial challenge to Darwin. The challenge is that modifications do not result in substantial physiological changes until an apparent switch is flipped. This begs the question of what the threshold for mutation accumulation is for significant physiological changes over a (geologically) short period of time like what we see in historical speciation events.

In case it hasn’t become clear, the larger challenges facing Darwinian gradualism are not scientific ones. Darwin knew well that what he proposed in On Origin of the Species and emphasized in Descent of Man was deeply steeped in ontological, teleological, and ultimately theological claims. This is why so much of evolutionary biology and our opinions on it are tainted by what we presuppose about the nature of the universe, life, and God. Failing to recognize this leads to unproductive conversations and ultimately confirming our preconceived notions about the other camp. We also fail to realize that the same observation, the same evidence, the same phenomenon can be used to support either evolutionary processes or creation. Commonalities between species are not evidence strictly of common descent, but if you don’t believe in a Creator, they must be. They may in fact be evidence of common design by a Creator who saw value in creating life similar enough to each other that we can use other species of varying complexity and relatedness to us to study complex medical and biological processes without needing to risk human life. As with all things faith related, that conclusion is a choice, and I choose to believe the latter, in part because I am convinced by the evidence and in part because I am compelled by the beauty and goodness of that design. It is the convergence of Truth, Goodness, and Beauty that points me to the Being that I believe created all of this, in some cases through evolutionary processes and in some cases as a novel creation. I will expand on this more in my closing remarks.

On Philosophy, Teleology, and Theology

The Ph.D. that is required to become a faculty researcher at any university is a misnomer for the education we receive in our specialty. In most cases, this is permissible. Students who intend to go into industry or work to develop therapies arguably have little utility for training in the philosophy of science and metaphysics. While I personally bemoan this fact, there is little to be done currently, and the impact is less damaging to the research being done in these areas. This is not the case in evolutionary biology. It is not simply because creationists are constantly seeking to attack the theories that dominate the field that training in philosophy should be more prominent, but on a larger scale, the field itself is one that was born in a philosophical environment.

Throughout this piece, I have stated that Darwin rejected teleology in biology in his proposal of gradualism through natural selection. This pillar of his theory rejects the idea that there are direction, intent, purpose, and design in biology. His proposal did not only cause a rejection of teleology in biology, but would spill over into chemistry and physics, resulting in the 20^th century scientific context being one that presumes randomness and lack of design in the universe. By making this claim, he set his theory against the historical view of scientific inquiry that there is some external intelligence that brings order to the universe. Again, the bold claim in Darwin’s work that brought the ire of the religious was not that evolution occurred, but that it occurred free of design and purpose.

This framing means that Darwinian evolution is in direct conflict with a classically theistic worldview, not for scientific reasons but for philosophical ones. I would make the argument here that if we have sufficient reason to accept classical theism is correct, we have sufficient reason to reject Darwin’s proposal of evolution. I would also like to point out that I have been particularly careful in only discussing Darwinian evolution in this context. Classical theism does not necessarily conflict with a view of life history that accepts teleology, such as process structuralism. I also would like to be perfectly clear that accepting Darwinian evolution does not disqualify you from being a Christian; I would just encourage you to work through the full teleological, ontological, and anthropological claims that come with Darwinian evolution.

This position is of course unsurprising. The vast majority of evolutionary biologists are aware enough of the philosophical claims of Darwin to understand that these conflict with classical theism. However, they are not trained enough in philosophy to understand why there is a conflict. This underdeveloped philosophical training is enough to make them dangerous, but ultimately blinds them to one of the most damning cases against Darwinian evolution: there is indeed direction, intent, purpose, and a goal of evolution. Evolutionary debates are misidentifying the ultimate disagreement between the creationists and evolutionists as a scientific one when it is a philosophical disagreement. Unfortunately, the way we argue seeks to work from the science to the philosophy – ignoring the wisdom of our predecessors who worked in the opposite direction – and this results in very little progress being made to convince anyone of our position.

Ultimately, what I think is preventing us from significant and rapid progress towards a cohesive evolutionary paradigm is the bullish way in which scientists hold to Darwinian evolution in response to creationists. Unfortunately, the fundamentalist rejection of an old earth and any possibility of evolution in any format have tarnished the good work that many creationists are doing to get the issue of teleology in biology seriously considered. Fundamentalists have also caused deep trenches to be dug on the scientific side that make it difficult to discuss the scientific challenges to Darwinian evolution that necessitates adherence to a loose deism or atheism without accusations being thrown around of anti-intellectualism and pseudoscientific dogma. However, these trenches that we’ve dug also trap us in a theory that has not found substantial enough evidence to be accepted as the prioritized model, making scientists feel it is impossible to consider other more viable alternatives without thinking they need to completely concede to the fundamentalists and lose all scientific credibility in every way. My closing thoughts will hopefully expand on this, provide encouragement for both evolutionists and creationists, and clarify my view on the matter.

Parting Words

It is an unfortunate side effect of being human that we allow our pride to infest our scholarship. Keeping charity at the fore of my mind in this section, there is a certain hubris that has festered in the scientific community for decades where we have locked ourselves into dogmatic positions without realizing it as a defense to what is viewed as anti-science communities. I don’t intend to defend these groups, but it is a shame that we who pride ourselves on intellectual rigor and clarity have outsourced our conclusions to be whatever is opposed to these groups’ conclusions. Evolutionary biology is not unique in its penchant for dogmatic adherence to theory, and this is not a novel trait in the academic community. What I do fear though, is that in previous centuries this dogmatism restricted our possible conclusions only in part, while it appears to me that dogmatic adherence to a non-teleological view of nature has negatively impacted our ability to do meaningful science.

By presupposing and clutching to an atheist, mechanistic naturalism, I believe we’ve amputated our ability to perform science to the highest degree. I believe there is wonder to be found in nature, wonder that is expanded by virtue of there being an intelligent mind behind it that is the embodiment of Truth, Goodness, and Beauty, all inseparable. To reject this is not just spiritually unsatisfying to me, it makes the universe and our possible scientific discoveries seem smaller. It is a beautiful aspect of classical theism – and many other ancient theistic worldviews that weren’t strictly monotheistic – that we believe that God created the universe in a rational way. In one sense, I predict that every aspect of creation will eventually be shown to be reducible, but this is because a good Engineer creates things in a coherent way that can be followed and rebuilt.

I also believe that the commonalities between species are God’s provision, extending from both beauty and virtue. We see this in how we do medical research, using animals that are quite different from us to test how novel therapies work in a system like our own. Rather than being the result of an unguided process that retained features by accident that allows us to do this, it is both more satisfying and more beautiful to me to believe that these were created to have structures and systems similar enough to provide us with tools we need to ethically conduct complicated research. This concept of the world reflecting the beauty and goodness of God is not unique to me but finds roots in the theology of St. Francis of Assisi. If the choice to believe in a teleological view of life history and that evidence for common descent is actually evidence for common design appears irrational, I would readily say that it is.

The question is: what’s wrong with that? We are not simply creatures of reason. What I care about when seeking to build a worldview is constructing my beliefs to have a certain level of concordance with reality, have explanatory scope and power, and ultimately, given the choice between two options of equal or similar weight, choose the one that is more satisfying and makes the world more beautiful. I do not believe in spite of evidence to the contrary in this regard but rather believe what I do because of an interdisciplinary and comprehensive approach to the problem of evolution.

Many questions remain, but I do not hold a dogmatic view on the matter. Recent developments in evolutionary biology are increasing evidence for process structuralism, a model that was previously rejected because it reintroduces teleology into biology. I don’t believe this conflicts with a Christian worldview, but would maintain a couple of caveats related to human origins for theological reasons that I feel are unnecessary to compromise on given the current evidence from population genetics. I hope this position encourages Christians from both creationist and evolutionist backgrounds to consider a more nuanced position, where we can reject components of evolution that conflict philosophically with what we believe to be true without throwing out the grander theory of evolution. We may even find ourselves proposing better paradigms than can be proposed from a purely naturalistic point of view.

Finally, the frustration I feel in these conversations does not come from a place of anger, but disappointment from what could be a genuinely remarkable exchange between great thinkers. I would ask we hold ourselves to higher standards when it comes to difficult conversations in science. Practice humility and clarity in all things. If that means that a one-hour conversation is comprised of 50 minutes of settling definitions, then focus on that. We benefit no one when we talk past each other and refuse to confront challenges in their best light. It is easy to sidestep challenges when they are lobbed carelessly, but this will only result in either side becoming more entrenched in their position and limiting our ability to learn and develop our understanding.

In all things, practice grace and charity. Perhaps the future of evolutionary biology requires a synthesis of creationist and evolutionist thought. Reinfusing biology with teleology may result in greater breakthroughs in evolutionary biology at first, resulting in rippling effects throughout the entirety of life sciences. The last piece of advice is to resurrect philosophy in scientific education. We have atrophied our ability to think and consider the cosmos for far too long, leading to limited theories being held to and downstream effects on ethics and our view of humanity and the world around us. Developing a deep appreciation for philosophy will improve our science and instill in us a richer sense of wonder at the beauty of creation.