Questioning evolution: The search for truth

A biology student explains his reasons for rejecting an unguided evolutionary process

John Knight ’08, Biology

Head Copy Editor

“All science, however well established, benefits from being periodically questioned. So why is there such a taboo on questioning evolution? Why is this, and only this, particular area of science a no-go area, fenced off from being questioned?”

John Lennox, University of Oxford Professor of Mathematics

As a biology student, I spent a large part of my four years in college trying to understand the origin of life and the processes that drove it. Despite my studies, I still find it to be a mystery, and I’m sure many others would agree. What I have figured out, is that one day I will know the truth, and I anticipate that day with con­tented wonder as I learn more about the world around me.

At the University of Maine, my professors came into class at the start of each semester expecting students to accept evo­lution. Once students reach college, questioning evolutionary theory is considered foolish – and some professors are happy to point that out. If you want to question evolution, head to the other side of campus and join the philosophers – this is science after all. But therein lies an error in scientific thinking. Most wise scientists would agree that theories, as logical and believ­able as they can be, should be held with only a moderate grip.

There have been many scientists that have claimed to know the truth, but their ideas were cast aside when more accurate ex­planations arose. To quote 20th century geologist Samuel War­ren Carey, “Like me, you may be surprised to find that the rate of recognition of false axioms (and adoption of bold new ones) has accelerated through the millennia, the centuries, and the decades, right down to our own lifetime. Only the naïve would believe that at last our dogma is pure.” 1

Believing you are the bearer of polished truth is not con­ducive to further understanding. It may be inherent or just our culture, but the push to be arrogant rather than reflective seems to have leaked into our science labs and lecture halls to seal gaps that would otherwise permit an open mind.

The same can be said of many in the religious community who have deep-rooted convictions about how we came to be and how life continues. For them, any occurrence that isn’t eas­ily understood can be conveniently explained by a supernatural cause. But this thinking ignores reasonable scientific explana­tions that arise to account for phenomena previously attributed to miracles.

Many people believe if one “miracle” can be explained by science, all of them can if given enough time. It’s a comforting thought when confronted with unexplainable things. Regard­less of whether believers understand something scientifically or not, they must realize that if a higher intelligence created real­ity, it would know everything about how the universe works and could explain scientifically how even an unusual event hap­pened.

It’s easy to accept evolution if you did not grow up attend­ing church, but students who did often struggle. They are taught in Sunday school that everything was created by God, and then university classes teach that life formed by random chance. Who should Christians believe? Why didn’t church leaders talk about evolution except to criticize the theory without knowing a lot about it? Why are professors of evolution so annoyed with Christians?

It seems both sides are pretty upset. I think we are usually afraid of what we don’t understand. As a person who yearns to find balance and truth, I tried to figure out the mystery of life through both science and spirituality.

I’m still trying to figure it all out, but I would like to pres­ent the most significant concepts that have led me to where I stand today on this issue. I say today in humility, as all scientists should, since I don’t claim to have complete understanding of every detail of the workings of the universe.

I have observed that professors who teach evolution sug­gest the evolution of living things is indeed guided, though they do not intend to. They teach that mutations are random, but if random mutations are one of the things that drive evolution, there should be many more harmful mutations than beneficial mutations. When a species is confronted with environmental pressures, an organism with a beneficial mutation will likely survive and pass on the mutated gene. If a mutation enables sur­vival, and mutations are random and cannot be chosen, each mutation has a low probability of being advantageous in coping with the specific stress.

Think of it like Megabucks. Each time you play is like each new environmental stress a species encounters. The number of players who don’t win are like the unproductive mutations in

each species. The person with the randomly drawn winning numbers would be like the mutation that was suitable to help the organism survive. Many more lose the lottery than win. If

evolution is the explanation, we should be seeing more unproductive mutations than we do.

Some may say these unproductively mutated animals are not seen because they are eliminated by the survival of the fit­test. It’s true that many would be eliminated, but there should be some mutations that are neither useful nor detrimental, and these unproductive mutations should at least be seen in young organisms in great quantity. Furthermore, a mutation should have no reason to seem productive to the individual. We see mutations occasionally, but to get the right mutation for the right stressor at the right time, we should see many more muta­tions – and not just when they’re needed.

This leads me logically to believe that winning “mutations” were guided so that the organism can survive. The organism can’t decide what it needs to cope with a new stress. No matter how much I wish I had one, I cannot make myself produce a third hand. Direction from an intelligent being using a process we may not understand should not be a preposterous idea. If we have figured out how to manipulate our genetic code, perhaps this being could too for our benefit. Evolutionists believe that mutations are random and that millions of other unproduc­tive mutations just didn’t “win,” but in their lectures they hint otherwise, saying environmental pressures caused the animal to mutate in an advantageous way.

I am very interested in the Cambrian explosion – the term “explosion” should catch your attention. Even with diverse en­vironments, the slow process of evolution by natural selection cannot account for the number of species that came into exis­tence in such a short period of time. About 500 million years ago, the explosion happened and lasted about 70 million years.

So, the idea that speciation happened over billions of years cannot be used to explain how such a massive variety of life came into existence from little more than bacteria, plankton, and algae. If there were a genetic code implanted that gave in­formation to form new structures, that would explain how spe­ciation could happen so quickly.

After observing and learning for years about the complex­ity of our planet, animal behavior, organ systems, and the in­teraction of organisms with their environments, I find it hard to believe that complexity is best explained by random chance. In an unguided system, everything in the universe should break down into a more chaotic state, so how do we explain the in­creasing complexity of life over time?

The last concept I’ll mention is one based on core evolu­tionary philosophy. A sad fact is that one could shoot an evo­lutionist’s wife, and he should make no accusations about it. To him, the bullet in her head is most probably explained by chance and undirected process with no moral law saying killing is wrong. Guns exist, bullets exist, his wife once existed. Three measly variables! It was bound to happen by accident, with no motive or directed process from an intelligent being. Three – nothing compared to the hun­dreds of properly sequenced proteins it takes to make the simplest cell. And if there is no true altruism in the world, the only reason for him to be sad is that she is no longer there to make him happy or pass on his genes. This is no threat to any evolutionist or his wife, just his philosophy.

I want to make clear my love for evolution­ists – not because they believe in evolution, but because they are people. The fact that they be­lieve life came about by chance is such a small part of their whole being. I believe they are ex­tremely valuable, just as God does – valuable enough to die for them.

These concepts and many more have led me to believe that God and science can and must exist in harmony, but I also don’t claim to have all the answers to this deep mystery. I know my understanding of the universe will change as I grow in knowl­edge and wisdom.

I am content in my anticipation of knowing the truth about how everything came to be. I believe everyone has the chance to be sure of where they will be after their biological bodies give out. You may not believe in souls or might believe that the soul dies with the body. I encourage you to think about what you believe and why you believe it.

After researching different religions with as much studying and questioning as I gave evolution, my belief in Jesus, who has proven Himself more real and more powerful than anything else I’ve encountered, has given me complete assurance of my eternal destination. I believe He wants to be in relationship with everyone but has given them the choice to accept or reject His invitation. I encourage you to explore who Jesus was and what He really said. Ask local pastors questions or talk to students in the Christian groups on campus. If nothing else, ask God. He’d love to hear from you.

1.  Carey, S. Warren. Theories of the Earth and Universe: A History of Dogma In The Earth Sciences. Stanford, California: Standford University Press, 1988.