What if Evolution is True?

[Jose]

From my point of view, evolution is a really interesting theory that explains the history of life on earth. I see no religious significance to it, one way or another. Yet, there are others who consider it to be a Very Bad Thing.

This raises the question: why would it be so bad for evolution to be true? Maybe to simplify this, I'll consider several discrete issues:

1. What will happen if it turns out that evolution really is true?

2. Why will this happen?

3. What evidence is there to support this prediction?

I would be interested to hear what the creationists have to say in response to these questions. I would also be interested to learn whether the evolutionists can offer evidence that would indicate a different outcome.

Thanks for the help!

--Jose

[t]

From my point of view, evolution is a really interesting theory that explains the history of life on earth. I see no religious significance to it, one way or another. Yet, there are others who consider it to be a Very Bad Thing.

This raises the question: why would it be so bad for evolution to be true? Maybe to simplify this, I'll consider several discrete issues:

1. What will happen if it turns out that evolution really is true?

2. Why will this happen?

3. What evidence is there to support this prediction?

I would be interested to hear what the creationists have to say in response to these questions. I would also be interested to learn whether the evolutionists can offer evidence that would indicate a different outcome.

Thanks for the help!

--Jose

cant all of this be asked in the Consequences of believing in Evolution
section, or do we need to do it again here?????If ok will answer here.

[Jose]

cant all of this be asked in the Consequences of believing in Evolution
section, or do we need to do it again here?????If ok will answer here.

You'd think so, but that doesn't seem to be the direction the thread is following. I looked through that thread, and came up empty-handed.

Actually, the question is different. Consequences of Believing in Evolution puts the focus on the person who happens to accept evolution, as if it is a personal choice. Sort of, "If I choose not to believe, then this will happen to me; if I choose to believe, then that will happen to me."

These questions put the focus on evolution itself, whether you "believe in" it or not. I also seek evidence to support the answers. If you think X should happen, why do you think that?

I'm hoping that approaching it this way will lead to a fairly thoughtful discussion.

--J

[otseng]

1. What will happen if it turns out that evolution really is true?

I think there should be first be a clarification of what is meant by evolution.

In general, evolution can be defined as "something that changes over time". With this definition, we can pretty much end all debates and say that this is true. Things do change over time. So, we have to go into more specific areas of evolution to find issues to debate.

I believe in terms of evolutionary debate, it can be divided into two main areas: biological evolution and cosmological evolution. Biological evolution deals with changes in living organisms. Cosmological evolution deals with changes in non-living things.

Now, with biological evolution, Douglas J. Futuyma gives one definition:

Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions."

In the same source as above, Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes give another definition:

"In fact, evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next."

I think most of biological evolution is not in debate by creationists. But, there are two main points of biological evolution that are debateable - life origins and common ancestry.

So, the question then becomes, what if common ancestry is true and that life arose from non-life?

In cosmological evolution, the main contention is that the universe could spontaneously arise without any external cause.

So, the question then becomes, what if the universe spontaneously came into existence without an external cause is true?

If all these things were true, I believe it would be a death blow to deists/theists. The Bible would be reduced to a fable and the discussion of any type of god would be irrelevant to life.

2. Why will this happen?

The Bible makes claims that God created everything and that He also created all living things. If it was proved that abiogenesis was true and that the Universe exists without a god causing it, then it would be contrary to the Bible. Therefore, the Bible would be wrong and would at best be treated as a fable.

3. What evidence is there to support this prediction?

I would also point out that this is my take on if the above statements were true. Obviously, there are people who believe in God and the Bible and hold on to abiogenesis and common descent. However, to me, I don't believe it's logically possible to hold on to all of them at the same time.

[Jose]

otseng--

Thank you for clarifying what I'm saying. Your careful division of the main question into its component parts shows that the question is really much bigger than it looks at first.

You are, of course, right that everything changes over time. So, we need to focus on either cosmological evolution or biological evolution. The abiogenesis issue is neither, since it would have occurred after the "critical events" of the former, and before the latter could begin. I'm happy to leave abiogenesis for another thread.

Cosomological evolution is also a bit tricky. The scientific evidence points to some kind of event that is currently interpreted as a "big bang." Was this the beginning? If so, maybe God did it. Maybe he even did it the way it says in Genesis, but saw no reason to restrict his "days" (or "eons" if you want the alternate translation of the original hebrew) to the period of one rotation of the yet-to-be-formed earth. But, maybe it wasn't the beginning. Maybe it was just what happens after all of the matter in the universe has been swallowed by the black hole that ate all the rest--and then it explodes, and starts the cycle over. I have no knowledge of any data that speak to this issue, so I think it will cause us to wander off into philosophy and speculation.

So, let's deal with biological evolution.

Now, with biological evolution, Douglas J. Futuyma gives one definition:
Quote:

Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions."


In the same source as above, Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes give another definition:
Quote:

"In fact, evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next."

The Curtis and Barnes definition is included in Futuyama's definition, so we're safe there. So, we can safely take Futuyama's definition.

It seems that there is fairly general acceptance of the idea that allele frequencies change in populations. It seems that some people are willing to say this is real microevolution, while others quibble with the issue that "not enough change" occurred to call it evolution at all. But, it's been demonstrated often enough.

I think this leaves us with the main question being common ancestry.

The Bible makes claims that God created everything and that He also created all living things. If it was proved that abiogenesis was true and that the Universe exists without a god causing it, then it would be contrary to the Bible. Therefore, the Bible would be wrong and would at best be treated as a fable.

Why would it invalidate the entire Bible? Why wouldn't it simply show that those few statements in Genesis are, shall we say, "condensed"? Even if common ancestry is true, it still works by each organism reproducing according to its kind. Chickens have baby chickens. Velociraptors have baby velociraptors. Trilobites have baby trilobites. Over time, as mutations accumulate and different populations of the same species accumulate diffferent mutations, the different populations become different from each other. Maybe they become different enough that they cannot breed with each other, and become different species. They still reproduced according to their kind--just their kind changed a bit over the millenia.

But wouldn't other parts of the Bible still be valid?

[Abulafia]

The Bible makes claims that God created everything and that He also created all living things. If it was proved that abiogenesis was true and that the Universe exists without a god causing it, then it would be contrary to the Bible. Therefore, the Bible would be wrong and would at best be treated as a fable.

Why would it invalidate the entire Bible? Why wouldn't it simply show that those few statements in Genesis are, shall we say, "condensed"? ...

But wouldn't other parts of the Bible still be valid?

If the Bible were to be treated as "at best" a fable if abiogenesis (of the non-divine kind.... God creating Adam from clay would be about as abiogenesis as it gets...) and macro-evolution were true, that would seem to indicate that the whole substance of the bible rests on it being both directly literal and infallible. That's not the case.

I think that if one is familiar with the Bible, it is very difficult to deny that there is profound wisdom in it. At most, if evolution is true, it would mean that the position of inerrantist literalists is invalidated.

Isaac Asimov wrote a wonderful story which involved a conversation between God and Moses.

God begins to describe the processes of creating the Universe via the big bang, and goes through billions of years of the traditional scientific version of it.... partway through, Moses cuts him off and explains "That's well and good, but no-one's going to remember all that! They won't understand it, and they'll lose interest... We've got to condense it... six days tops..."

(That's the gist anyways).

[Jose]

Isaac Asimov wrote a wonderful story which involved a conversation between God and Moses.

God begins to describe the processes of creating the Universe via the big bang, and goes through billions of years of the traditional scientific version of it.... partway through, Moses cuts him off and explains "That's well and good, but no-one's going to remember all that! They won't understand it, and they'll lose interest... We've got to condense it... six days tops..."

That Asimov was a clever guy. That makes perfect sense.

He also wrote, in Nightfall, of a 6000-year (I think) cycle in which everyone panics due to all 6 of a world's suns setting at once, so night actually falls. In the beginning of the story, the scientists and the religious leaders are fighting about what to do. In the end, the scientists are recruited to become religious leaders, and develop the rules for how to handle the next cycle. People have a hard time following complicated scientific mumbo-jumbo, but if we reduce the fundamentals to an easy-to understand code of behavior, then it's a lot easier.

It's the same idea. "Condense the story, and put it in terms they'll understand. They won't have the background for what you're saying now for another 2000 years."

I think that if one is familiar with the Bible, it is very difficult to deny that there is profound wisdom in it. At most, if evolution is true, it would mean that the position of inerrantist literalists is invalidated.

I'd agree with that. There is wisdom in it, but it's often phrased in terms of how people lived a rather long time ago. As for literalism, there's already plenty of stuff in it that we don't take literally, anyway--like the idea that the heart is the seat of reason (I hope my surgeon knows differently), and the idea of being able to see the entire world from the top of a mountain (though, I guess, the flat-earthers still don't buy the alternative to that one). That's the beginning of the slippery slope that takes you to the Pope's stance, but you know, the Pope is still a fairly devout guy.

Take away the inerrant literalist conflict with evolution, but leave the wisdom, and a lot of perceived problems will simply go away.

[otseng]

I think this leaves us with the main question being common ancestry.

If the question then boils down to only, "what if common ancestry/descent is true?", then Abulafia is correct; the Bible literalists would be wrong.

Why would it invalidate the entire Bible?

If it was only common descent, perhaps not.

However, if abiogenesis was true and the Big Bang can be explained without a supernatural cause, then any need for supernatural causes can be made moot. And I think this could be a case for invalidating the existence of God and the reliability of the Bible as well.

[Jose]

If it was only common descent, perhaps not.

However, if abiogenesis was true and the Big Bang can be explained without a supernatural cause, then any need for supernatural causes can be made moot. And I think this could be a case for invalidating the existence of God and the reliability of the Bible as well.

So the big problem is the idea that, perhaps, these things would be seen as proof that God cannot exist? That would be a bit of a shock for Christians, wouldn't it?

Still, I think you can wiggle out of it in two ways. First, the metaphorical nature of the text. As many Christians believe (albeit not the YECs), God used the natural processes that have been revealed by scientific inquiry.

The second, which is more drastic but consistent with monotheistic views of ancient or current-but-"primitive" cultures, is that the sacred text is the accumulated wisdom of our ancestors. There are references to one or more supreme beings in nearly all religions, and usually, the supreme being(s) set things up and then left. But, that's just the beginning, and a mere description of the ancient past. For the present, we need the wisdom in the text.

We need dietary advice, social advice, assistance with the grief of bereavement. We need a set of rules to live by. Perhaps, in the US, we have moved much of this advice into the realm of Law rather than religion--but that was done on purpose, since one of the goals of the founders was to escape the religious persecution they had faced in Europe. But that's OK, since we really don't want to return to religious law and try the accused by dunking.

Whichever way it goes, though, there are bigger issues that we have not addressed. If evolution is true, and if these other things are as well, and if this causes prior literalist Christians to abandon the Bible (which I really don't think it will do), then what?

I guess, what I'm getting at is, "why is it such a big deal that so many literalist Christians seem so insistent that evolution must be wrong, that scientists must be conspiring to keep the truth from being published in scientific journals, and that it is critical to get creationism into the school curricula (currently disguised as ID)?" If it's just a matter of interpreting scripture slightly differently, that doesn't seem like such a momentous issue. There must be much more at stake.

[Abulafia]

I guess, what I'm getting at is, "why is it such a big deal that so many literalist Christians seem so insistent that evolution must be wrong, that scientists must be conspiring to keep the truth from being published in scientific journals, and that it is critical to get creationism into the school curricula (currently disguised as ID)?" If it's just a matter of interpreting scripture slightly differently, that doesn't seem like such a momentous issue. There must be much more at stake.

<ramble>
I think there's a few of reasons here.

Firstly, If one considers the Bible to be absolutely reliable, and the surface meanings of what it says to be accurate, it is possible to then surrender one's self fully to its teachings, proscriptions, etc. There are several reasons why this would appeal. If the absolute reliability of the historical elements is undermined, that undermines the reliability of the whole Bible. That's not to say that it loses all of its power, but it would no longer have that special distinction of being infallible. It is then up to the reader to struggle through determining what sections of it they think are true, what sections they want to base their life on, etc.

Another key reason I think has to do with a very appropriate attack on the way that science and scientific theories are frequently presented, particularly in schools, but also more generally. Often in schools the best scientific theories of the day are taught as absolute fact. Students are taught that it's taken humanity a while to figure out how things work, and while we certainly don't know everything, here's the things we do know. Anything which is heterodox is ridiculed or laughed out.

I think there's a few distinguishable modes of attack on scientific theories which come from Creationists.

I think that it's true that many creationists attack evolution, scientific cosmogeny etc. specifically because they believe these things must be wrong because the Bible is inerrant and doesn't say that's how things happened. And if the scientists are so insistent that a given theory (take whatever today's best evolutionary model is) is the way that things happened, they must either be crazy, or lying for some reason. It's easy to jump from here to evil conspiracies of 'scientists' trying to lead children away from the clear and obvious truth. This is particularly easy in cases where the Creationists in question have a poor grasp of science. A poor grasp of science makes it harder to understand why scientists might support a given theory, or to examine the evidence and see why a given theory is promising.

I think there are also creationists who have a good grasp of the science, and that's where their issues come from: Every theory has its flaws, and its not an unheard of thing for scientists to apply some pretty extravagant 'patches' to theories to try to make them tenable (epi-epicycles anyone?). These are the creationists I enjoy: smart, curious, frequently with some background understanding of the theories that are being talked about, they take their faith in the truth of the Bible as one of their axioms, and also take scientific method as an invaluable tool for reaching truth. They look for the holes in the theories, and see whether they can make theories which are more robust or coherent which include the 'Biblical inerrancy' axiom.

I think to the vast majority of evolutionists, something here seems horribly wrong. Doesn't this abovementioned creationist approach defy Occam's razor? Isn't it simpler for the universe to be the result of a few rules, simple in their basics though complex in their interactions than for it to be the product of Divine agency?

One problem with this intuition is that Occam's razor is an article of faith. It isn't the sort of thing which one builds a theory to support: its a touchstone used to evaluate respective theories. There's no reason why tracing chains of causation should lead to unity rather than plurality. But you can't do a whole lot to figure out how things work without Occam's razor.

In any case: I guess my main point was that there are major problems with the dominant scientific theories, both in terms of their content and in terms of their presentation. One approach is to revisit presentation, and to continue to continue the process of theory revision and creation in a manner which rejects deistic agency. Another is to start with deistic agency as a given (as described in the Bible, for example), and revise theories from that standpoint. Of course, to be good revisions in the scientific tradition they should provide better explanatory and predictive power than the current ones, as well as introduce a unity rather than a plurality of sources for causal chains.

</ramble>