Call Me a Dinosaur I

The following is a series of letters between my biology lab teacher and I. Just so you know, this all started with my "intentional inquisitiveness" during one particular class period when she presented evolution. I couldn't believe her honesty and willingness to talk, as you will see in the next few letters. My hope is that you are encouraged to not be afraid of those "scary intellectuals;" they're just people, people. And they need the Savior just like everyone else...

John,

Sorry I couldn't address your question in class - I don't want to you to think that I was blowing you off. If you are interested in looking more into the evidence for evolution there are some detailed web sites you can check out:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_evolution

The idea is that if microevolution happens bit by bit over a very long period of time, eventually the end product will be very different from the starting product, = macroevolution.

Like we learned in lab, microevolution can be directly observed and experimented on, but macroevolution is left to inferences, circumstantial evidence, comparisons, etc., and consequently, support is weaker. A wide variety of supporting indirect evidence makes it stronger.

In addition to the fossil record (1),

(2)they are starting to gather molecular evidence - similarities in gene sequence between different organisms used to construct phylogenetic trees, and (3) comparative anatomy where they use common structure among different animals - the hand bones of a human compared to a bat, whale, horse, or vestigial structures

There are probably other things out there as well that I haven't thought of, but this is an interesting debate, and it's good that you think critically about it.

See you next week,
Natalie

~*~

Natalie,

Hey! Thank you so much for the e-mail. I really appreciate your willingness to talk about this issue. And you’re right – this is an interesting debate that carries tremendous implications towards life, philosophy, religion, and so on.

I have taken time to look at the evidences proposed to support macroevolution. Although I am by no means a scholar in the field of biology, I believe I understand enough to at least question the validity of this theory.

I’m not going to state all of my reasoning in this email – I’d prefer to discuss these issues in person – but just to let you know where I’m coming from, I will briefly summarize my position:

Obviously, I am a Christian. ;) Therefore, the macro evolutionary theory presents a very different explanation for the origin of life in all of its vast complexity and wonderful diversity than the belief system that I adhere to. But please understand this: I neither hate science nor fight against it. Rather, I LOVE the thrill of learning about how the world works (you’ve probably seen how excited I get in class when we get to do experiments ;) and all the benefits that come from that gained knowledge (medicine, technology, etc…). Science is a very good thing. However, when it is not understood in respect to the revelation of God, then it very quickly loses any grounds to adequately explain the big issues pertaining to life, death, and origins. Basically, I believe that science and faith are not mutually exclusive. So when faced with apparent findings that seem to contradict my faith, I start with these presuppositions and work to resolve the issues.

I hope that makes sense. Now, let me just quickly state my responses to the evidences for macroevolution.

1) You said, “The idea is that if microevolution happens bit by bit over a very long period of time, eventually the end product will be very different from the starting product, = macroevolution.” All microevolution does (to my knowledge – please correct me if I overlooked anything) is make sure that a species is well-adapted to its environment by favoring the beneficial traits. Microevolution cannot advance a species to a “higher level” because no new DNA is ever added. For example, even if we were to do our experiment in class with the paper dots for an eternity, reenacting natural selection, would those little dots ever become a larger, intricately-designed piece of origami? Well, of course not. That would require both more material (DNA) and an outside force to create it.

2) I already gave [in class] an alternative explanation for the fossil record. Therefore, this evidence is made null on the basis that it can be equally or better explained by a catastrophic flood.

3) Along the same line of argument, similarities in gene sequence and homologous structures are also evidences that assume that macroevolution has actually taken place. Furthermore, these “evidences” can also be used as proofs for a Designer using consistent patterns.

To summarize: all of the evidences that I know of used to support macroevolution are 1) interpretations based on the assumption that it has occurred and 2) can also be used in support of a common Creator.

Please understand that this isn’t a thorough presentation on the issue. I just want you to have a better understanding of my position. Of course we can elaborate on it in class if you would like. My desire isn’t to get into heated debate (there’s enough of that going on at ASU ;), but rather to politely discuss the issues.

Anyway, thanks for listening – I really appreciate your fairness in class to hear different arguments. I look forward to talking to you on Thursday.

Have a great week,

John Roberts