Loading...

Creation and evolution. some clarifications

Creation and evolution. some clarifications

In this post I am going to indicate some assumptions of what I wrote in my series of eight posts on Creation and evolution. I will start by giving seven definitions, to clarify my terminology. Remember the scholastic saying: “De definitionibus non est disputandum” (“definitions are not discussed”, since everyone has the right to choose their own terminology, within certain reasonable limits). Next I will state seven basic premises that are simple factual data, verifiable. I hope that in this way I can establish a common base or shared starting point. Finally, I will briefly express my vision of the matter.

1. Definitions

• Fixism is the doctrine that different species arose, somehow, in their current form from the beginning, without any relationship of descent with each other, and do not transform.

• Evolutionism is the doctrine that maintains that different species arose, in some way, from each other from a common origin, transforming over time.

• Creationism is the doctrine that God somehow created the different species.

• Darwinism is a doctrine whose basic principles are two: first, the idea of ​​the “tree of life” (1). It affirms the existence of a common origin of all living beings and the origin of some species from others. Second, the idea of ​​"natural selection." It is stated that species are transformed through a process of descent with small gradual modifications and "natural selection", that is, the survival of the fittest or best adapted living beings to their environment. After a very long process, the accumulation of small modifications would give rise to a new plant or animal species.

• Neo-Darwinism (the current version of Darwinism) is the doctrine that the creative or positive role of the evolutionary process is played exclusively by random genetic mutations, which produce the small gradual modifications postulated by Darwin. The destructive or negative role of that process continues to be in charge of natural selection, just as in early Darwinism.

• Microevolution is the biological evolution that we can call “horizontal”, within the Darwinian image of the “tree of life”. Microevolution alters some incidental or secondary aspects of a species, keeping its basic "body plan" unchanged. Examples: a species of bacteria becomes resistant to an antibiotic; a species of light-colored insects turns dark in color; one species of bird develops a larger beak; etc

• Macroevolution is the biological evolution that we can call “vertical”, within the “Darwinian” image of the tree of life. Macroevolution significantly alters the bodily characteristics of a species, turning it into a different or very different species. Examples : the transformation of unicellular organisms into multicellular ones; from invertebrates into vertebrates; from fish into amphibians; from reptiles into birds or mammals; etc.

2. Basic premises

• Microevolution is a directly proven fact.

• All scientists accept Darwinian microevolution; Put more precisely, they accept that random genetic mutations and natural selection are capable of producing microevolution.

• This does not imply that forms of microevolution determined by other factors cannot exist. For example, man is capable of microevolution, both through traditional methods of breeding breeds of pets or livestock, and through modern methods of genetic engineering. That is to say that in addition to a natural microevolution there is also an artificial microevolution, guided by an intelligent external agent, which causes it seeking a specific purpose.

• Macroevolution is not a directly proven fact, but a scientific theory based on numerous clues (similarities in the series of fossils, in the genetic code, etc.).

• Almost all scientists accept that macroevolution did occur, at least to some degree.

Creation and evolution. Some clarifications

• The Darwinian theory is the most widely accepted explanation of macroevolution, but there is scientific disagreement about it. A significant and growing minority of scientists strongly questions the scientific value of Darwin's theory of macroevolution.

• All living things and even all cells that we know of have arisen from a previous living thing or cell. Human beings have been able to artificially transform some biological forms, but have never synthesized any (not even a cell) artificially, from mere inert matter.3. My view on the matter

Now I will make some comments about these premises. Evolutionism or "theory of evolution" includes both micro-evolution and macro-evolution. There are two types of microevolution: the one that occurs by artificial selection (by traditional methods or by genetic engineering methods) and the one that occurs by natural selection. Darwin's theory explains this last form of microevolution well. But the validity of Darwin's theory with respect to microevolution does not in itself imply its validity with respect to macroevolution; that is, it does not prove that macroevolution has occurred merely by Darwinian natural selection, which does not prevent Darwinian natural selection from having intervened in the phenomenon, as one factor among others.

The opposite of evolutionism is not creationism, but fixism. Creationism can be both evolutionary and fixed. For its part, fixism can be accompanied by the idea of ​​the “young earth” (which supposes the creation of the universe in six exact days, according to a fundamentalist interpretation of Genesis 1) or not. In the latter case (let's call it “non-fundamentalist fixism”), it is accepted that species, although fixed and independent of each other, arose gradually over hundreds of millions of years. Almost all scientists reject fixism and, even more so, the "young earth" hypothesis. This last hypothesis, above all, lacks scientific dignity. We believers should not (and do not have to) reject dating that are archi-proven by science.

The first article of the Apostles' Creed reads as follows: "I believe in God, the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth." Catholic doctrine is creationist, but by itself it does not imply either evolutionism or fixism, rather it is compatible with both. Evolutionary creationism does not lower our notion of God, but in a certain way emphasizes the infinite intelligence of the Creator, who does not need daily miracles to display all his creative work. According to the Magisterium of the Catholic Church, the Catholic faith does not imply fixism, much less fundamentalist fixism.

The few Catholic defenders of fundamentalist fixism express themselves as if the “biblical question” continued to be posed in the same way as in the 19th century, but since then a lot of water has flowed under the bridge of theology, which is also evolving, growing in their understanding of God's Word. Remember, for example, the encyclical "Divino afflante Spiritu" of Pope Pius XII (of 1943) and the dogmatic constitution "Dei Verbum" of the Second Vatican Council (of 1965). Following these teachings of the Magisterium, today we Catholics are very aware that, in order to correctly interpret Genesis 1, its literary genre and the culture of its time must be taken into account; but above all it must be taken into account that the truth that the Bible transmits without error is a truth of a religious and salvific order, not a scientific one. The main author of the Bible, by inspiring it, did not want to reveal to us cosmological or biological science, but the mystery of God and man, the path of salvation.

It is essential to distinguish between evolutionism in general and Darwinism, a particular theory of evolution. For my part, I accept that there has been a biological evolution, although I distinguish between the proven fact of microevolution and the theory of macroevolution. However, I consider the latter a well-founded and very reasonable theory. What I reject (for scientific, philosophical, and theological reasons) are the Darwinian and neo-Darwinian explanations of macroevolution. In other words, I accept the real existence of the "tree of life", but I do not accept the Darwinian explanation of the relationships between its different components. In particular, I find the mathematical or statistical objections to neo-Darwinism overwhelming.

The neo-Darwinian needs to prove that all biological evolution has occurred only by chance, without any purpose; it is enough that there is a case that cannot be explained based on chance for his theory to collapse.

In classical Darwinism, the hypothesis of gradualness is essential: the changes that have transformed some species into others have been many and very small, for which reason the transformation has occurred very gradually, over millions of years. In standard neo-Darwinism (also called "synthetic theory" or "modern synthesis"), that principle of gradualism becomes the hypothesis that transformation between species occurs through an enormous number of random micro-mutations. The serious difficulties facing this theory have led some evolutionists (such as S. J. Gould) to abandon the basic Darwinian principle of gradualness, postulating the existence of macro-mutations. Therefore, broadly speaking, today there are two Darwinian theories of macroevolution: the one based on micro-mutations and the one based on macro-mutations ("big leap" evolution).

The genetic code is very important in living beings, but it is not everything. There is a 2% difference between the genetic material of human beings and that of chimpanzees, but that does not prove that there is only a difference of degree (non-essential) between the two species. In man there are many essential things (such as the capacity for intellectual knowledge, abstraction and reflection) that do not exist at all in chimpanzees. We must guard against the mistake of extrapolating exaggerated philosophical consequences from scientific data that is valid in itself. The ways to measure the "distance" between species can be several. The degree of similarity between their respective genetic codes is only one of them. The great pending scientific question is not so much to measure that distance, but to explain how it came to be covered.

Darwinism gives rise to a devastating anthropology: man as a mere evolved primate (2). In addition, extrapolated in the form of "social Darwinism", it has disastrous social consequences. If man is just one more animal and the only law that governs his evolution is natural selection (the survival of the fittest), then it is justified that in the In society, the strongest always prevail: "Social Darwinism" is a "rationalization" of the "law of the jungle" in society.

“Intelligent design” is not an invention of the North American Intelligent Design movement (the “ID movement”). With capital or lower case, it is the same concept, which is required by the Christian faith in God the Creator. On the question of whether the intelligent design of the cosmos and living beings can be scientifically proven, there are different positions and nuances within the ID movement. What is very clear is that this movement maintains that Darwinism can be refuted scientifically and intelligent design can be rationally demonstrated, both positions compatible with Christian philosophy.

Despite his relativistic tendency, Thomas Kuhn's thesis on “scientific revolutions” (changes in scientific “paradigms”) and his analysis of the sociological aspects of the evolution of science are interesting. Kuhn says that the dominant group within the scientific establishment always opposes paradigm changes, because it is in their interest to maintain the status quo (3). This is what happens today in the case of the debate on Darwinism. Darwinists routinely use immoral forms of censorship, beginning with questioning the fitness or integrity of scientists who disagree with Darwinian "dogma," and ending with their removal from academic posts.

Part of the scientific job is to find the flaws in currently accepted scientific theories. A scientific theory can be shown to be false without replacing it with another equivalent theory. However, I am not afraid to point out that, in my opinion, the new scientific paradigm on biological evolution will not rule out the hypothesis that transformations between species are somehow pre-programmed in the genetic code and that random genetic mutations are not the cause of these transformations, but at most their occasion.

Daniel Iglesias Grèzes


Notes:

1) The "tree of life" is the only graphic representation that appears in the famous book "The Origin of Species" by Charles Darwin.

2) This anthropology has a strong tendency towards radical individualism. British Catholic historian Paul Johnson put it this way, referring to the refusal of biologist and atheist propagandist Richard Dawkins to debate with him the existence or non-existence of God: “I leave aside the ostensible reason for Dawkins' refusal: that my challenge is motivated by personal interests. We all know it's not the real reason. […] After all, according to the author of The Selfish Gene, we are all continuously guided by personal interests and any other motive would be unnatural or illusory. Needless to say, I don't share this depressing vision of humanity, and I pity the professor for believing it impossible for a human being to be driven by faith, a cause, a genuine desire to enlighten society, or – the main motive in my case – a earnest desire to share the precious gift of belief in God with as many mortals as possible. One of the dire consequences of being a materialist like Dawkins is that one is logically bound to deny the existence of metaphysics, and the world of the spirit becomes a no-go zone. One is forced to imprison oneself in a one-dimensional existence, with no significant past and no personal future, where all that matters are material objects pushed by porcine genes.” (Paul Johnson, To the devil with Picasso and other essays, Javier Vergara Editor, Buenos Aires 1997, Chapter "What fears the atheist of Oxford?", pp. 292-293).

3) See Thomas S. Kuhn, The structure of scientific revolutions, Fondo de Cultura Económica, Buenos Aires 1991.

Related Articles