In January 2012, Joseph A. Kuhn, MD, wrote an article entitled “Dissecting Darwinism” on the website of the National Library of Medicine (National Center for Biotechnology Information. Here is the link to the full article: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3246854/
In his article, Joseph A. Kuhn writes (in part), ‘In a 2005 survey of 1472 physicians, almost 78% favored a belief in evolution as an explanation for the origin of the species. Among the nation’s scientists and biologists, 99% believe in Darwinian evolution. The definition of evolution has changed over the years. However, the basic tenets of Charles Darwin suggested that random mutations occur, and natural selection continually acts on the surviving mutation, leading to slight improvements and changes in species over time. Neo-Darwinism was coined in 1895 and reflected knowledge of reproduction and recombination, leading to potentially greater shifts in species. The “modern synthesis” of evolutionary thought was proposed in 1950 to incorporate the knowledge of genetics, systematics, paleontology, and other fields. Taken together, the basic concepts recognize that random mutations occur, and natural selection continually acts on the surviving mutation, leading to improvements and changes in species over time. These mutations can occur gradually or rapidly via a term called saltation or punctuated evolution. This process of mutation and natural selection has been proposed to explain the descent from a common ancestor, even from the original prokaryocytes billions of years ago. On the basis of natural selection and time, it has been theorized that single cellular organisms may have arisen from a primordial mixture of ancient elements and energy.
Several academic organizations have developed guideline statements to promote Darwinian evolution (including neo-Darwinism, modern synthesis, and punctuated evolution) as the single basic principle to be taught in high schools, universities, and colleges. School systems have debated the educational merits of Darwinian evolution and have found themselves in various state and federal courts. In Kitzmiller v the Dover Area School District, the US District Court ruled in 2005, among other things, that the school board could not require teachers to denigrate or disparage the scientific theory of evolution. In 2010, the Texas State Board of Education accepted testimony for 3 days from scientists and citizens regarding the teaching of evolution. Representatives of the National Center for Science Education testified that teaching the weaknesses of evolution would unfairly mark future high school seniors as poorly prepared to compete for college positions based on an education that might be considered non-scientific. However, numerous other scientists, citizens, and educators brought forth evidence that emphasized the weaknesses of Darwinian evolution. Ultimately, the board took a controversial position and voted to require future textbooks in the state to explain the weaknesses and the strengths of Darwinian evolution.
Two specific strengths of Darwinian evolution are generally agreed upon:
Species adapt to a change in environment (bird beak changes, bacterial resistance, fruit fly experiments). This is called microevolution.
There is similarity in the DNA across species (called homology).
During the Texas State Board of Education testimony, weaknesses were raised about three issues:
Limitations of the chemical origin of life data to explain the origin of DNA.
Limitations of mutation and natural selection theories to address the irreducible complexity of the cell.
Limitations of transitional species data to account for the multitude of changes involved in the transition.’
Responses to Dr. Kuhn’s paper were numerous, but, now that our church is studying the Book of Genesis and has thus begun “at the beginning” (which is what the Hebrew word for Genesis, bereshith, literally means), we should briefly consider in this blog a Christian response to evolution. There are some who would say that a Christian can believe in evolution. For an example of this position, one can turn to the article found at https://sciencenetwork.uk/think/accept-evolution. For an example of the contending position, that the belief in evolution is untenable, please check out Dr. Henry Morris’ article on the website of The Institute of Christian Research, found at https://ww.icr.org/article/53/
For many Christians, though, the matter is simple: Whereas “micro-evolution”, the natural, observable adaptations within species (“according to their kinds”, as Genesis 1 puts it) is fully accepted and embraced, it is the belief in “macro-evolution” where the difficulty lies, based upon its start at one-celled amoebas eventually evolving into fish, and then into walking fish, and after a many eons into apes, and finally into humans. The problem with macro-evolution is that it is not-observable, has no scientific evidence to support it, and, frankly, makes God unnecessary.
As Dr. Stephen Grocutt, Ph.D in Physical Chemistry, says on the creation.com website (https://creation.com/en/videos/why-evolution-is-a-fairytale-for-grown-ups), “I can’t prove creation. I can’t prove evolution. I can’t prove that a flying spaghetti monster didn’t create the universe. (This is because those things) sit in a field called forensic or historical science. The “origin of life” (referring to the teaching of macro-evolution) is a fairy tale because it starts with, “Once upon a time” a bunch of lifeless, simple molecules joined together to become a bit more complex, and more and more complex. I mean, I’m sorry, it takes more belief to believe in a natural origin for life than in a designer.” He goes on to make the point that “Most scientists don’t know evolution isn’t ‘observable science’ and that the ‘the law of decay’ works against a basic tenet of evolution, that of the “survival of the fittest”.
The Bible teaches that God was before everything and that He/Elohim (a plural word for God that Christian theologians speculate involves the Godhead of God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) create the universe out of nothing. “Nothing” cannot have created something. Only a designer mind could have created. That designer mind was God, Christians (and, Jews) would say.
