Why Not Theistic Evolution?
- Jon Peters
- Mar 1, 2023
- 14 min read
Updated: Aug 10, 2024
With a review first of Creationism Types
"Science wants to know the mechanism of the universe, religion the meaning. The two cannot be separated." ~ Charles Townes, Physicist
Creationisms
Creationism refers to those who believe God had a hand somehow in the formation of species. Of course it also aligns with other topics such as the origin of the universe and the origin of life (see my posts about the Big Bang and also abiogenesis) which do not directly connect with evolution. If we never discover what came before inflation or how the first cell came about that would still not impact the evidence for evolution. I will argue that with what science has discovered even the creationism that seems to accommodate evolution with God using or guiding it called theistic evolution, or as some prefer to rebrand it evolutionary creationism, also fails to fully accommodate science. I will refer to this creationism with it’s older, better known term theistic evolution (TE) but acknowledge the advantages of the new term for them. I will also assert that although this is the only creationism that appears to accommodate science, it suffers from other mortal flaws, leaving all forms of creationism ultimately unable to form a foundation for religious and agnostic worldviews. Lastly I will further posit that all forms of creationism will be unable to ever have a viable origin narrative that is both scientifically sound and also not suffering from other refutations. These will be detailed.
Abrahamic believers number about 4.2 billion of the 8 billion humans alive today. I am not addressing the 1.2 billion Hindus and 500 million Buddhists (1) but plan to write about major religious beliefs in the future.
The major types of Biblical creationisms today in my opinion are Gap, Day-Age, Figurative, Young Earth (AIG, ICR, CMI organizations), Progressive (RTB organization), and Theistic Evolution (TE). Young Earth Creationism (YEC) claims the universe and earth are less than 10,000 years old, that there was a global Noachian Flood, an Ark and other literal interpretations of Genesis. All the others are various Old Earth Creationisms (OECs).
Gap creationism proposes that there are billions of years between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2.
Day-Age Creationism suggests that each day of the creation week can be millions or billions of years based on 2 Peter 3:8 (a day to the Lord is as a thousand years). This attempt to accommodate Genesis with science along with Gap addressed mainly the geological findings and radiometric dating but did not adequately deal with evolution well and so are not popular today.
A Figurative approach basically assigns Genesis to metaphor, analogy, hyperbole, or other more liberal interpretations. It is rejected by the conservative Abrahamic religions as sacrificing too much of the scriptures to literature and mythology and so is usually not acceptable to them.
Progressive creationism, championed by Hugh Ross and Reasons to Believe (RTB), accepts an old universe and earth but further explains the geological column as successive whole extinction events and repeated complete new creations by God. This idea of repeated cycles of mass extinctions by God so unique species could be de novo created each time without evolution is not new. Thus the denial of transitional fossils existing (for example to prepare the earth for humankind's need for fossil fuels) traces back to Cuvier (d. 1832). He postulated the same solution to explain all the fossils he was identifying. He called these episodic mass extinctions and complete reboots of life "revolutions". Before Cuvier most people rejected fossils and extinctions because that idea did not fit with their concept of Biblical creation, as God declared everything good at the end of the creation week. For them, having millions of species go extinct did not seem consistent with Genesis and all "good" species. Reasons To Believe also holds tightly to a historical Adam and Eve and denies human evolution.
YECs are the most scientifically radical. In order to hold to this interpretation of Genesis, they must redefine or reject laws of physics (radiometric decay and red shift, for example), redefine geology and anthropology (glaciation, plate tectonics, the geological column, etc.), reject all of evolution and it’s evidence including DNA findings and paleontology, and insert a global year long flood, an Ark, a Tower of Babel to explain languages, belief in a talking snake and donkey, and belief that people once lived to nearly 1,000 years. To them women have extreme pain and sometimes die in childbirth because two people ate fruit suggested by a talking snake from the wrong tree God specifically put in the middle of a special garden so they would not miss it. They reject the evolution of bipedalism and changes to the female pelvis documented in the fossil record that makes giving birth to a large headed primate difficult. They are also prodigious in their publications and probably account for 95% or more of the creationism articles and videos on the Internet. I will be writing in the future about how YECism basically must thus wrap themselves with a cloak of conspiracy thinking at this level of denial and rejection of settled science.
The other consideration is that many people construct a personal and unique creationism (and also worldview) of their own, often combining many different aspects of an origin narrative, thus producing a mosaic or mash-up of ideas. This may be very true of the “nones” in America, that although not religious, often are spiritual or agnostic towards theology in some way. So it is vital that when discussing origin narratives, assumptions are not made about what the person believes; ask them for specifics. Unfortunately, many people may not be aware of inconsistencies in their species origin narratives. Their simple answer may just be an insufficient “Goddidit”.
Theistic Evolution/Evolutionary Creationism Types
I have demonstrated on this site with just two examples - whale evolution and DNA discoveries that rise to the level of proof of human evolution (see ERVs; also see Human Chromosome 2 fusion, DNA repair patches, pseudogenes and transposons) - that evolution is true. Evolution is settled science (see Evolution. Also see "How We Found Out Evolution Is True," a wonderful short TEDx presentation by John van Wyhe ). Mechanisms for how it occurred are still debated but not that it did occur. Given that evolution is no longer debated in science, I assert that all creationisms including TE suffer in some way from rejecting evolution as we find it. If a creationism rejects human evolution considering the overwhelming evidence we have for it, we are more than justified in dismissing it out of hand as a viable explanation for species origins. Figurative creationism is generally rejected by Abrahamic believers themselves since it sacrifices too much in their view of the original scriptural meaning. It makes a mockery of their core beliefs by assigning too much to mythology. That leaves only TE to address. Do any of the various forms of TE/EC really accommodate evolution as science has found it? There appear to be several TE variations.
One form especially common among Catholics accepts "molecules to man" but proposes supernatural intervention at various times in history. These TE advocates may feel the need to have God tinker with the evolutionary process at some points. For example, by causing certain mutations or de novo genes to occur at certain stages in evolution despite that fact that in 400 years of intense research science has found no evidence for this. I think Behe of the Discovery Institute uses this type of God directed evolution in his TE beliefs. Adam & Eve are usually just metaphors.
A second type of TE accepts scientific evolution but still must have a historical Adam to try and accommodate Genesis. Recall that genomics has demonstrated that humans never went through a bottleneck of 2, or 8 off a boat; we never went below 3,000 - 10,000 individuals. The evangelical William Lane Craig, one of the most prodigious debaters for conservative Christianity, now publicly accepts human evolution in his writings but has a modern Adam being created by God at the time of Homo heidelbergensis and then somehow replacing that hominin population with the new, modern guy on the block who is injected into earth's history from above. Joshua Swamidass accepts human evolution but has God creating a garden and Adam 6,000 years ago only to see Adam’s DNA spreading around the world and completing its journey just in time for Jesus to arrive and save the world 2,000 years ago. All of these variations of TE contain unproven religious presuppositions injected into the theory of evolution, hoping again to save their interpretation of Genesis in the face of robust evidence for evolution, and especially human evolution. They are absurd and are ad hoc even if they can't be disproven.
The above variations of TE are not evolution as science has found and described it. Evolution relies on random mutations, brutal natural selection plus other naturalistic mechanisms, and there is no evidence of a historical Adam/Eve. As I've written, genomics indicates the human population never went below 3,000 - 10,000 and certainly not all the way down to 2, or 8 off an ark with a brutal and cruel genocidal reboot by drowning. Nor has science revealed a God reaching down and tinkering with the process of evolution at just the right moments. The "solutions" by Craig and Swamidass indicate desperation to hold onto Genesis at any intellectual cost and stretch credibility to where it breaks.
A third type of TE/EC is probably best described by the scientists and academic Christians at Biologos (2), the site founded by Francis Collins in 2007 with a Templeton grant to showcase especially the DNA evidence for evolution. They posit that God used evolution as science has found it to create life on earth. They also interpret Genesis as more mythology or figuratively/symbolically, including the Biblical Flood as a local event for example. They fully argue for an all naturalistic approach to evolution as God's method for the origin of species. YEC literature bemoans the growth of TE in churches but I have not seen that. Perhaps it's in the younger generations and the "nones", and I am just not aware of it. In evangelical circles and other conservative religion writings I have not seen the message of Biologos changing theist minds to any great significance.
Why TE Fails
"And after millions of years of mutations, mass extinctions, devastating diseases, and violent death, God saw all that He had evolved and behold it was very good!"
~ Dan Lietha (Young Earth Creationist)
There are many reasons why TE/EC fails as an attempt to accommodate Genesis with science, evolution.
1. At best, this form of creationism would be superficially consistent only with deism. A personal theistic God that interacts with His creation frequently and answers prayers is not supported. A theist still has a mountain of evidence and logic to provide.
2. I assert that if God used evolution to create or allowed it, then this God is not worth worshipping. He would then be incompetent, indifferent to the waste and suffering or malevolent having enjoyed all the waste, death and suffering. Let me explain by looking at how natural selection and evolution actually work.
As I wrote in the Introduction to Evolution, evolution is when a population genetically changes from a previous one. Specifically, more individuals happen to inherit certain genes that code for certain characteristics. This occurs because natural selection selected which offspring variants are best fitted for the current conditions and live long enough to produce more viable offspring than other variants in the population. In order for this system to work, nature produces lots of offspring. Given time, adaptations will arise and spread throughout the species.
For example, populations tend to be stable from generation to generation. Despite thousands of eggs laid by a fish, only one or two will survive into the next generation to reproduce. Dogs have many puppies and cats kittens but on average if a population is stable, over the life of the parents only two on average in sexual species of all those offspring will survive to reproduce. An oak tree will produce millions of acorns each year and billions over its life only to have one replace itself in a stable forest. What about humans? From the time of fertilization until a child grows to a reproductive age there is nearly an 80% death rate before modern medicine and societies. Many fertilizations don’t implant. Some of those that implant miscarry (a spontaneous abortion in medicine). Some offspring die at birth and more later before reaching reproductive age. Around the world a woman dies every 2 minutes during pregnancy or giving birth. Human parents needed to have many children even a hundred years ago because so many died before adulthood. The waste and suffering is incredible to just get a few offspring into the next generation in nearly all the species that live or have ever lived. In a theistic world, this God either designed this system that includes so much death or allowed it. People want to worship this horrible architect?
When we look at the history of life on earth, 99.9% of species that have ever existed have gone extinct. There have been at least five huge mass extinctions. Sometimes it's a rock from space. Another time huge lava flows in Siberia cover the planet for millions of years and poison the air. Some species can’t compete against other species, especially if a new species is introduced. This can happen due to continental drift or a pregnant founder species onto an island for example.
A system of creation that depends on evolution is one that is incredibly wasteful. Children die of starvation, infection or cancer by the thousands for example. This is why I assert that although TE/EC appeals to all natural mechanisms it paints this God as incompetent because this method is hardly worth embracing by anyone. One can’t hold up awesome redwoods and beautiful butterflies without also mentioning childhood cancer, malaria, and Ebola. Or, this deity is indifferent to all the waste and suffering and offers nothing better. A “Fall” as an excuse if offered means all those innocent children and animals are just collateral sacrifices? Lastly, perhaps God likes the suffering and waste and is really malevolent. In contrast to this theistic way of looking at nature via a God designed creative evolution, the way we find the world and universe is exactly what we would expect if evolution were true and there was no Engineer and Designer at the wheel of the evolution bus.
3. There is no evidence of God the Tinkerer. Mutations for producing new genes to form new species are overwhelmingly random. Mutations are often neutral or deleterious. No evidence for any supernatural intervention has been found during intense evolutionary research.
4. Our genome is 80 -90% junk DNA. Please see how we know this by reading the blog on Junk DNA. It's difficult to imagine worshipping a God that ends up creating humans and other organisms like this. God the DNA junk hoarder?
5. A theist must still argue for a "soul" that persists after death. What kind of entity or force or energy this would be is not specified. Well respected physicists now argue that physics demonstrates that people can't have a "soul".
6. When we look at the history of life as revealed in the fossil record and in the DNA of species we see no planning or goals. Every theist arguing for TE/EC posits the assumption that God used evolution to evolve humans; we are the end result of a grand plan. But the record of life reveals 99.9% species failures, horrible mass extinctions, and genomes consisting of massive amounts of junk DNA. We are the product of billions of years of evolution and contingencies and not the end goal for evolution. We are fortunate to be here; several times we almost went extinct and here. This does not speak to some kind of grand plan with evolution as the method; just the opposite. Some like Conway Morris have argued that since we note convergent evolution frequently that there appears to be constraints on evolution. As a challenge to Gould who wrote that if the tape of life was rewound and restarted that the same species would not appear, he counters that they would still originate despite contingencies and what appears to be random events. Thus, teleology still has a place in TE/EC according to these theistic evolutionists (4). However, just focusing on convergent evolution without considering other factors such as junk DNA, massive extinctions, and the waste and suffering baked into evolution just reveals motivated reasoning and confirmation bias.
7. In order to hold to TE/EC huge amounts of the various scriptures need to be interpreted as mythology, literature or rationalized to the point they lose divine meaning. For example, Noah's Flood is local despite Genesis having birds taken on board and the verses specifying high mountains were flooded. A bible's supernatural narratives dismissed to accommodate science dismisses its claims to divinity also.
The malevolent Designer?
Is God Good?
"I go into a lab and create a unicellular eukaryotic organism that will kill millions
I infect flying insects to serve as the delivery system
If I release it, would I be evil?
Without exception every theist I asked replied 'yes'
I then ask them to explain malaria."
~ Author unknown.
Attempting to explain malaria with "The Fall", and absolve God won't work. Who created the very complex parasitic Plasmodium species? We are told by some creationists that nature can't increase complexity or add new information. If not God, who or what? Did it "de-evolve"? How? Did God then at least allow it? What happened? From what? What are the steps we can reconstruct in its DNA to show this?
Thus, if God used or allowed evolution to create, this means He/She/Them/It is not worth worshipping. This is the best He could do? He doesn’t care or can’t do anything about the waste and suffering? TE/EC fails as a viable creation narrative option in my view because it not only sacrifices too much of its scriptures to mythology, but is irrational. Thus, Christians and other theists are left with no choices for an origin narrative that is believable and accommodates science. Origin narratives serve as foundations to our worldviews. In my opinion, theists will never be able to formulate an origin narrative that will stand up to science, not compromise their scriptures with too much mythology, and withstand a rational evaluation. It’s not the fault of science that religion keeps making claims that are falsifiable, and trespassing into areas that science and philosophy study.
One of the most comprehensive reviews of the multiple failed attempts by Christian apologists to accommodate Genesis with Evolution and science is the book “Evolving out of Eden” by Price and Suominen. (3)
It should be noted that some atheist/agnostic scientists such as Lents are very willing to support theistic evolution because in their view believers endorsing evolution means at least science will no longer be under ongoing attacks from religious fundamentalists. That is a pragmatic approach to take when considering the long struggle for evolutionary theory acceptance, especially in America. But the form of TE/EC that is being accepted is often not the Theory of Evolution as it is taught and practiced in science. It remains to be seen if short term goals met in this scenario brings only long term confusion and problems later. This may be just kicking the Evolution can down the road.
A good collection of articles in favor of theistic evolution defended by Catholic scholars can be found here, especially the article by Austriaco in "The Fittingness of Evolutionary Creation". However, it fails to address my claims. Evolution is not a "most efficient way for divine providence" as I detailed above in point number 2. Using random asteroid strikes for example to open up niches via whole species slaughter rather smacks of planetary near genocide. Calling extinct species just "necessary left-overs from the creative evolutionary process" and ignoring that at least 80% of our genome is junk DNA is incredibly fanciful. Rather, this speaks of evolution without goals or planning let alone any method a wise, compassionate deity would use to create species.
Conclusion
Major forms of creationism are reviewed. Most are Old Earth Creationisms which accommodate a universe and earth billions of years old but usually deny evolution and especially human evolution. Young Earth Creationism rejects nearly every significant finding of science in regards to origins; it is the one type that clutches its beliefs mainly through denial. All the major forms of creationism reject large scale evolution, "macroevolution", and human evolution except for Theistic Evolution or its newer name, Evolutionary Creationism. Thus, the agnostic or theist who wishes to ascribe the origin of extinct and living (extant) species to a creator and be consistent with science will often turn to TE/EC as an answer to species origins thinking that this is a viable solution. The problems with TE/EC as a viable option to explain species origins for Abrahamic creationists are numerous and include painting the divine Designer or Engineer with incompetent, indifferent, or malevolent colors and injecting the unsupported goal of producing humans as an ultimate divine plan. That many of the "nones" may be adopting TE without a sound knowledge of how evolution really operates and how TE is thus not a viable option, is troubling. In addition, so much of the theist scriptures need to be compromised with analogy, metaphor and appeals to mythology that the Abrahamic God fades into history to join Norse, Greek, and Roman stories as literature and mythology only. For "nones" this latter problem may not be an issue.
"We cannot escape our origins, however hard we try" ~ James Baldwin
Citations
Comments