Book Review of "Why Us?" Part 2

Le Fanu devotes several chapters to Darwin and evolution. He begins by describing the zeitgeist of Darwin's time and how it led to the rapid and devoted acceptance of evolutionary theory. He then goes on to describe how scientific findings have undermined Darwin's theory, leaving it on the verge of collapse. He believes it is only the ideology of scientists that protects it now. In chapter five, he describes why he believes science has revealed fatal flaws in evolution as an explanation for our origin by addressing the problem of the fossil record, the inability of man to replicate nature's designs, and the inexplicable homology (similarity) of animal structures.

Regarding the fossil record, he discusses the evidence for immediate change within organisms, followed by long periods of stability within organisms, rather than slow evolutionary process described by Darwin. He quotes Niles Eldredge as saying "When we do see the introduction of evolutionary novelty, it usually shows up with a bang, and often with no firm evidence that the organisms did not evolve elsewhere." In summarizing the finds of the transitional forms that presumably led to the modern whale, Le Fanu notes that 12 million years would not provide the time needed for the numerous transitions from the wolf-sized mammal pakicetus to the whale. He noted, "some other dramatic mechanism, as yet unknown to science, must account for that extraordinary diversity of life as revealed by the fossil record." He didn't calculate how much time would be needed. He only quoted a report from an academic conference on evolution which concluded that mechanisms underlying microevolution could not be extrapolated to explain macroevolution.

Le Fanu also described the problem of "perfection" for evolution. He noted the inability of bioengineers to design an artificial heart which performs anywhere nearly as effectively as the human heart. He concluded that "it seems merely perverse to suggest that the undirected process of nature, acting on numerous small, random genetic mutations, could give rise to this or any other of those 'masterpiece of design.'" He declined to point to a Creator as the designer of such masterpieces, instead stating that "some prodigious biological phenomenon, unknown to science" must be responsible for our organs being "constructed to the very highest specifications of automated efficiency."

Finally, Le Fanu examined the "unsolved problem" of Cuvier's law of homology, which refers to the apparent similarity in structure of limbs of various creatures, from reptiles to amphibians, to birds, to mammals. Darwin felt that this was strong evidence of evolution. However, studies of embryos from these diverse animals reveal that their limbs originated in different segments of the trunk. He concludes by noting that the "'common architectural plan' of the forelimbs of reptiles and mammals, so long held to be powerful evidence for Darin's theory, can no longer be interpreted in favour of descent from a common ancestor."

I certainly agree that there is still a great deal we have to learn about our origins. Additionally, I do believe we are products of our time, apt to adopt the worldview in which we are born, which necessarily colors our view of the evidence before us. Certainly scientists are no different and have been slow to question the orthodoxy of evolution. This is a concern in that it prohibits them from asking the questions and exploring the inconsistencies in data that might lead to a better understanding of how we all came to be. However, I am encouraged that there are scientists who are challenging current understandings of evolution and attempting to develop models which better fit the data.

Here's one example of a recent article by a scientist evaluating the state of evolutionary theory.

In future posts I'll discuss what Le Fanu has to say about the limits of science in the fields of genetics and neuroscience.

The Future of Homo Sapiens

In writing my last post, I started wondering about the future evolution of human beings and found a brief and interesting article exploring various scenarios for our species. I enjoyed the artist's renderings of our possible descendants. You can read the article here. Of course, if you're like me, you should probably be doing something other than reading yet another article. I should be calculating final grades (boring), billing insurance (maddening), or creating consent forms for the private practice I'm starting (overwhelming). Guess I'll go look up another article now :)

Review of "the Reason for God" Chapter 6 on Science

Keller takes the stance that the science/religion dichotomy is a false one. He spends a fair amount of time pointing out that significant numbers of scientists, in fact, believe in God. To counter claims that science has disproven the miraculous he makes the point that science, which is based on methodological naturalism, can only address the natural. Therefore, science cannot be used to disprove the supernatural, whether that be God or miracles. He asserts that God cannot be proven or disproven. While I agree with this last statement, the Intelligent Design (ID) movement would counter that science can be used to detect design in nature, providing some support for a creator (think fine-tuning arguments).

Keller addresses evolution, admitting that he believes in some type of God-directed process of natural selection. He does not view evolution as contradicting the Biblical account of creation, unless it is accepted as an "All-Encompassing Theory". I certainly agree with him here. It is important to understand the genre of the Biblical literature we are reading as well as the ancient near east (ANE) worldview in which it was written. Christendom has a history of interpreting scripture in ways which inevitably bump up against new scientific discoveries, leading to reinterpretation of the Biblical text in ways that do not conflict with them (think geocentric vs. heliocentric view of the universe).

In a bookclub meeting I attended tonight at church, we discussed this very issue of Christianity reinterpreting scripture and readjusting its view of the world as science has progressed. An important question was raised about how to prevent ourselves from taking stances based on scripture which turn out later to be wrong. I don't know for sure that we can avoid it. However, humbly being willing to hold our beliefs with some tentativeness and to revisit our positions based on new evidence would certainly go a long way. Hopefully, we are allowing our faith and science to inform each other, instead of compartmentalizing them.