Rational Wiki on Theistic Evolution

A young man I know only from Twitter shared a link with me to an article on theistic evolution at Rational Wiki. [1] Within the first couple of sentences I ran into an erroneous assertion, which I pointed out to him with a correction. Then I said to him, “I’m still reading this article, of course, but what was your intent in sharing this? You’d like a response to it?”

He replied that it was just intended to demonstrate that theism and evolution can co-exist but, he said, “I always appreciate a thoughtful response as well.”

So there are two things I would say in response. First, with respect to the co-existence of theism and evolution, there are far better resources than Rational Wiki (which is a genuinely ironic title since their material is typically less than rational). Just off the top of my head, one of the best resources in this regard is the BioLogos Foundation, created by Francis Collins who led the Human Genome Project and is director of the National Institutes of Health. [2] There is also the American Scientific Affiliation, along with its journal Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith. [3] I would also mention the Faraday Institute for Science and Religion, particularly the Emeritus Director Denis R. Alexander who wrote possibly the most important book on evolutionary creation, Creation or Evolution: Do We Have to Choose? (2014, rev. ed.). [4] There are also a host of other books I could recommend on this subject, including Darrel Falk, Coming to Peace with Science (2004) and Nancy Morvillo, Science and Religion (2010). [5]

Second, there were some problems with this article at Rational Wiki and they mostly involved the confusion or conflation of different ideas. For example, they equate “theistic evolution” and “evolutionary creation,” as if they were the same thing (they are not). This is an error I’m accustomed to witnessing creationists make—young-earth, old-earth, and intelligent-design—and one that rational people usually manage to avoid. (All the same, it amuses me to observe atheists making similar arguments as creationists.) By the very nature of nouns and adjectives, the term “theistic evolution” makes evolution the point articulated in theistic terms. This is inconsistent with a biblical world-view and an inappropriate inversion of priorities. For Christians, creation is the point and should therefore be the noun, articulated in evolutionary terms (i.e., “evolutionary creation”).

Denis Lamoureux explained it like this:

The most important word in the term “evolutionary creation” is the noun “creation.” These Christian evolutionists are first and foremost thoroughly committed and unapologetic creationists. They believe that the world is a creation that is absolutely dependent for every instant of its existence on the will and grace of the Creator. The qualifying word in this category is the adjective “evolutionary,” indicating simply the method through which the Lord made the cosmos and living organisms. This view of origins is often referred to as theistic evolution. However, such a word arrangement places the process of evolution as the primary term, and makes the Creator secondary as merely a qualifying adjective. Such an inversion in priority is unacceptable to me and other evolutionary creationists. [6]

And Howard J. Van Till explained the matter in very similar terms:

Views similar to mine are sometimes identified with the label theistic evolution. But that term has some very serious shortcomings. As I see it, it turns the order of importance of divine and creaturely action upside down. Because it appears as the noun, the term evolution … appears to be the central idea. Meanwhile, by referring to God only in the adjective, theistic, the importance of divine creative action seems to be secondary. But that implication would be unacceptable to me. [7]

Third, even though at the beginning of the article they properly understand that theistic evolution is “a theological response to the scientific theory of evolution,” throughout the remainder of the article they seem to forget this point as they criticize this view on scientific grounds. It is a confusion of categories to level scientific criticisms at a theological position. For one example, they refer to deistic views on evolution as “the least scientifically contentious opinion.” Well, deism and evolution are entirely different categories, one theological and the other scientific; it would be incoherent to raise scientific contentions against theological opinions in the first place. Another example is found in their point about Occam’s razor. If such evolutionary processes as natural selection are explainable without recourse to supernatural devices, “then God becomes an unnecessary hypothesis.” True—with respect to scientific work. But didn’t we just admit that theistic evolution is a theological perspective on evolutionary history?

Fourth, they claim that the “scientific” conception of evolution “maintains that the process [of evolution] is unguided.” This is simply false. There is precisely zero science involved in the concept of evolution being unguided. If that is anything more than uncritical prejudice, it is a philosophical conclusion, not a scientific one, and almost certainly crippled by fallacious reasoning. The question of whether evolution is guided by a transcendent Creator is outside the competence and purview of science because it is impossible to control for natural processes that are guided by God and those that are not. Scientists don’t draw conclusions about God; they simply ignore the question of God in their work. This is understood as methodological naturalism. A strictly scientific theory is religiously neutral; God is neither included nor excluded. Here I will turn to Denis Alexander and let him explain why:

There is a tradition in modern science not to use “God” as an explanation in scientific discourse. This tradition was nurtured by the early founders of the Royal Society partly in an attempt to let the natural philosophers (as scientists were then called) get on with their job without becoming embroiled in the religious disputes of the time, but also in recognition that the universe is, in any case, all the work of a wise Creator—so using God as an explanation for bits of it didn’t really make much sense, given that God was in charge of all of it. [8]

Finally (and trivially), I cannot figure out what distinction they intended between (a) “theistic evolution and natural selection” on the one hand and (b) “theistic evolution and guided evolution” on the other. On my reading of it, they seem identical. On the one hand we have God guiding such evolutionary processes as mutations, and on the other hand we have God intervening to make certain genetic modifications. That sounds like the same thing to me.

Such were my thoughts on that article.

John M. Bauer
@JohnMBauer1
Approx. 1,000 words.

Footnotes:

[1] Rational Wiki, s.v. “Theistic evolution” (accessed September 30, 2019).

[2] The BioLogos Foundation (web site; Wikipedia article); Francis Collins (NIH bio; Wikipedia article).

[3] American Scientific Affiliation (web site; Wikipedia article); Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith (online archive; Wikipedia article).

[4] Faraday Institute for Science and Religion (web site; Wikipedia article). Denis R. Alexander, Creation or Evolution: Do We Have to Choose?, rev. ed. (Oxford, UK: Monarch Books, 2014). [Amazon] The first edition was published in 2008.

[5] Darrel R. Falk, Coming to Peace with Science: Bridging the Worlds Between Faith and Biology (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2004) [Amazon]; Nancy Morvillo, Science and Religion: Understanding the Issues (Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 2010) [Amazon].

[6] Denis O. Lamoureux, “Evolutionary Creation: Moving Beyond the Evolution Versus Creation Debate,” Christian Higher Education 9, no. 1 (2010): 28–48. Quote is taken from p. 29.

[7] Howard J. Van Till, "The Fully Gifted Creation," in J. P. Moreland and John Mark Reynolds, eds., Three Views on Creation and Evolution (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1999), 172.

[8] Denis R. Alexander, Creation or Evolution: Do We Have to Choose? (Oxford, UK: Monarch, 2008), 183–184.

Quotes: Abraham Kuyper

An entirely different problem is that [which is] so often discussed in England: whether religion permits, as such, the spontaneous evolvement of the species in the organic world from one single primary cell. That question, of course, without reservation, must be answered in the affirmative. We should not impose our style upon the Chief Architect of the universe. Provided he remains not in appearance but in essence the architect, he is also, in the choice of his style of architecture, omnipotent. If it thus had pleased the Lord not to create the species as such, but to have one species arise from the other, by designing the preceding species in such a way that it could produce the next higher, the creation would have been just as wonderful.

Abraham Kuyper, as quoted in Jan Lever, Creation and Evolution (Grand Rapids, MI: Grand Rapids International Publications, 1958), 229.

Review of John Byl, "Is Evolution Unfalsified?" – Part 3

(Click here for Part 1, and here for Part 2.)

The following is my continuing look at an article written Dr. John Byl of Trinity Western University in Langley, BC (Canada) intended to demonstrate that the modern scientific theory of biological evolution has been falsified in many (and in some cases important) ways. [1]

Is evolution falsified by failed predictions?

"According to philosopher Karl Popper," Dr. Byl said, "the essence of science is that its theories should be potentially falsifiable. A scientific theory should make clear predictions that can be tested." Well, the philosophy of science is a hotly debated subject but let's find out where his argument is going. Maybe I am a bit naive when it comes to this subject but, at least for the time being, I tend to agree with that position—namely, that a proper scientific theory should generate testable predictions or at least be falsifiable in principle ("potentially"). If no empirical evidence could ever falsify a theory, if there is no conceivable way that it could ever be proved wrong, then it is not scientific.

Incidentally, this is precisely why creationism disqualifies itself as scientific, the examples of which are legion. I encountered yet another one as I was paging through the fifth edition of Refuting Evolution (2012) by Jonathan Sarfati. He suggested that all organisms could possess DNA molecules with a carbon-based structure (as they do) or they could display a variety of different forms (such as a silicone-based biochemistry), and either way would look like design—maybe a single designer with an extensive toolbox, or multiple designers with alternative ideas on how to construct life. In other words, the evidence for design is whatever we find. Even a common genetic program "may or may not be the case for common design," he said. So the conclusion is design, no matter what, a conclusion safeguarded from ever being falsified by any evidence. [2]

On the other hand, Darwin's theory of evolution has made countless predictions, most of them indirectly or inadvertently but some that were very specific, and the theory has not yet been falsified. Descent with modification from a common ancestor has predicted the universality of the genetic code, the consistent distribution of fossils in the geological column, intermediate species including their general morphology and location, molecular clocks indicating evolutionary patterns of descent that correspond with biogeographical patterns, and on and on. Entire books have been written exploring the countless predictions that would follow under the assumption of evolution being true, the vast majority of which are driving fruitful scientific research in the lab and in the field.

But let's see what Dr. Byl will argue using this falsifiability heuristic principle. Referring to a personal web site belonging to an intelligent-design proponent, he claims that this Cornelius G. Hunter has listed over twenty "false predictions of evolutionary theory." [3] All right, here we go. I think he means to highlight certain things predicted by evolution that is not borne out by the evidence, testable predictions that were falsified. And, of course, once a theory has been clearly falsified it ought to be discarded. For example, if we found dinosaur and modern human fossils in the same sedimentary layer alleged to be 80 million years old, that would falsify evolution (but it would go a long way in supporting young-earth flood geology).

What about Cornelius G. Hunter's list?

Hunter, who is responsible for the list, had other ideas. Contrary to Dr. Byl, his argument is that specific hypotheses relevant to evolution have been falsified but not the theory of evolution itself. [4] "Falsified predictions are sometimes used to argue a theory is false," Hunter said, but such a "naive falsificationism is flawed and not used here." Let that sink in a little. He also went further and said that these "false predictions do not demonstrate that ... evolution is false." So you can understand my confusion over Dr. Byl's aim or intention in citing Hunter.

But then even Hunter's list itself is flawed and questionable, regardless of his intent. I only got as far as the first article which Dr. Byl had highlighted, regarding the claim that "the DNA code is not unique." This has supposedly been falsified. But the analysis Hunter provided was so manifestly flawed that I didn't bother reading any of the other articles. Let me show you what I mean.

Hunter said that the genetic code "arose so early in evolutionary history, in the first primitive cell, [that] the code must not be unique or special." Umm. What? It is difficult to make out what his point is. Honestly, how does the genetic code arising so soon in evolutionary history lead to the conclusion that it's not unique? Is there a hidden premise at work? I thought that maybe if I read further, including the material he cited, it would start to make sense.

But no, it didn't. He quoted Francis Crick who said that "there is no reason to believe ... that the present code is the best possible." That's not a claim that the code isn't unique, only that we have no reason to think it's the best possible. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. But consider this: If X is not the best possible yet it's the only one of its kind, then it's unique. That's just what the word means. Crick also said that this code "could have easily reached its present form by a sequence of happy accidents." Since it is possible for unique things to arise by a sequence of happy accidents, this likewise doesn't support Hunter's straw man. Hunter also refers to Bruce Alberts, who said that "the code seems to have been selected arbitrarily." Another claim about its development, not its uniqueness. [6] Finally, he cites Mark Ridley who said that the code is "a 'frozen accident'," by which he means that "the original choice of a code was an accident; but once it had evolved, it would be strongly maintained." [7] Once again, this is about its development. There is no claim here that it isn't unique. Not a single statement to the effect that "the DNA code is not unique" or special.

In fact, all these claims seem to constitute a good argument that the genetic code is indeed unique or special—it is the universal, one-of-a-kind code found in all organisms, "from bacteria and archaea to plants, animals, and humans, the instructions that guide development and functioning are encased in the same hereditary material, the DNA [molecule]." [8]

Hunter concedes that "somehow the DNA code evolved into place but"—and here is where he veers sharply away from his referenced material—"it has little or no special or particular properties." How on earth did he draw that conclusion? The reality is quite the contrary, and I have an extensive library upon which to draw if there is any doubt regarding what evolution predicts regarding DNA. Since Hunter's logic was invalid, and it seemed he wasn't even making the point which I think Dr. Byl was aiming for at any rate, I stopped reading his list and returned to Dr. Byl's article.

Is evolution falsifiable?

Evolution certainly is falsifiable, and I have described some of the ways that could be done.

According to Dr. Byl, the theory of evolution has been so heavily modified to accommodate all the available data that it has "become much more cumbersome" with ad hoc tweaks and revisions, such that it "is no longer elegant nor simple." I have not seen that in my reading of the relevant literature and Dr. Byl has not succeeded in arguing otherwise here. The theory is contained in a simple and elegant statement, that the origin of species is best explained by descent with modification from a common ancestor. That's it, that's evolution. Not only is that how the theory is understood in the science books I have in my library but even in creationist books from Ken Ham and his Answers in Genesis ministry, which defines evolution in essentially those same words. [9]

Everything else buzzing around the theory are supporting (or competing) hypotheses regarding the mechanisms by which evolution occurs (e.g., Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium, the adaptationism debates, etc.), or the rate of evolutionary changes (gradualistic or punctuated), or the Lemarckian implications of epigenetics, and so on, falsifiable hypotheses that are tested and either accepted (and re-tested), modified (and re-tested), or rejected (and taken out with the trash). [10] These hypotheses are supposed to flesh out the details of the theory (if they hold up), but not a single one of them changes the theory at all. It still is, as it has been for more than 150 years, descent with modification from a common ancestor. (Think about this in slightly different terms: If a hypothesis about planet formation was wrong, would that falsify the heliocentric theory? Of course not.)

Conclusion

Contrary to Dr. Byl's conclusion that evolution has been falsified in many ways, some of which are significant, nowhere in his article did he successfully make that case:

1. If evolution is falsified by Genesis, he failed to demonstrate that exegetically.

2. And it cannot be falsified by origin-of-life problems because life evolved irrespective of how it arose.

3. What about the fact that macroevolution has never been proven or observed? First, no one can seem to agree on precisely what "kinds" represent taxonomically so it is impossible to evaluate that claim. Second, human lifespans are breathtakingly short on geological timescales, so of course it hasn't been observed. Third, theories are either fruitful or false but they are never proven.

4. Does the fact that evolution has no commercial application falsify the theory? I really don't see how. And I further dispute Dr. Byl's rhetorical strategy of redefining evolution so that it no longer includes variation in a species population (change in allelic frequencies).

5. On my view, if evolution was inherently naturalistic, then it definitely would be false—but it's not naturalistic.

6. The fact that a host of unanswered questions remain doesn't somehow falsify the theory (non-sequitur). It's just good science in progress.

7. What about the alleged failed predictions? It has not had any—yet. Various proposed hypotheses supplementing the theory have met with either success or failure, but these are not themselves the theory. As pointed out, if we invalidated a hypothesis about planet formation, that would not falsify the heliocentric theory which it served. (It's so important to understand the proper difference between hypothesis, theory, and law.)

At the end of the day, evolution is definitely falsifiable, but it has not been falsified. If young-earth creationists presented a responsible exegesis of Genesis 1 consistent with sound hermeneutic principles, taking into consideration the original language, its ancient Near Eastern cognitive and cultural context, the intent and understanding of the original human author and audience, and so forth—you know, a literal interpretation—which showed that it is describing the dawn of natural history, the physical or material origins of all things, then evolution would be soundly falsified. Or, going the scientific route, if they were to find evidence consistent with a global flood but contradicting evolution—again, simple things like the fossil remains of some canine "kind" in early-Devonian deposits, impossible given evolution but the sort of evidence that would be abundant and easy to come across given creationist flood geology—then that would effectively falsify evolution.

Until then, it's falsifiable but not yet falsified.

John M. Bauer
@JohnMBauer1
Approx. 1,800 words

Footnotes:

Unless otherwise indicated, all Scripture quotations are from the Holy Bible, English Standard Version (ESV), copyright © 2001 by Crossway, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

[1] John Byl, "Is Evolution Unfalsified?" Bylogos (blog), August 28, 2015.

[2] Jonathan Sarfati, Refuting Evolution, 5th ed. (Atlanta, GA: Creation Book Publishers, 2012), 83.

[3] Cornelius G. Hunter, "Darwin's Predictions" (personal web site), c. 2015. Hunter used the free hosting services of Google, so I was prejudicially skeptical of its credibility because of my cynical disposition. To me this was tantamount to Geocities or Angelfire—although it suddenly dawns on me now that most people are probably no longer familiar with those ancient free web site services from the 1990s. Hunter's personal blog is Darwin's God.

[4] Contrary to how Hunter expressed himself, these are actually not predictions of evolution as a broad scientific theory. These are hypotheses proposed as supplemental evolutionary details, some of which may turn out to be wrong.

[5] Francis Crick, "The origin of the genetic code," Journal of Molecular Biology 38 (1968): 367-379. Citation provided by Hunter.

[6] Bruce Alberts, D. Bray, J. Lewis, M. Raff, K. Roberts, and J. Watson, Molecular Biology of the Cell, 3rd ed. (New York: Garland Publishing, 1994), 9. Citation provided by Hunter.

[7] Mark Ridley, Evolution (Boston: Blackwell Scientific, 1993), 48. Citation provided by Hunter. My copy is a 3rd edition and has slightly different wording: "The code is then what Crick (1968) called a 'frozen accident.' That is, the original coding relationships were accidental, but once the code had evolved, it would be strongly maintained." Mark Ridley, Evolution, 3rd ed. (Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2004), 59.

[8] Francisco J. Ayala, The Big Questions: Evolution, ed. Simon Blackburn (London, UK: Quercus, 2012), 90.

[9] Ken Ham, general editor of the three-volume New Answers Book series, likewise admits that evolution is understood in terms of all life on earth coming about "through descent with modification from a single common ancestor." See the "Glossary" in Ken Ham, ed., New Answers Book 1 (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2006), pp. 355–365.

[10] See for example R. E. Michod and D. Roze, "Cooperation and Conflict in the Evolution of Multicellularity," Heredity 86, no. 1 (Jan 2001): 1–7. See also "Does Evolutionary Theory Need a Rethink?" Nature 514 (Oct 2014): 161–164.

Review of John Byl, "Is Evolution Unfalsified?" – Part 2

(Click here for Part 1.)

The following is my continuing look at an article written Dr. John Byl of Trinity Western University in Langley, BC (Canada) intended to demonstrate that the modern scientific theory of biological evolution has been falsified in many (and in some cases important) ways.

Is evolution falsified by excluding God (naturalistic)?

(Technically this wasn't one of Dr. Byl's arguments. He simply took it for granted that evolution is naturalistic and went on to make an argument about its explanatory shortcomings. However, I wanted to isolate and address this naturalistic presumption because, if it were true, that would fatally undercut the theory in my opinion.)

The theory of evolution was proposed as "a naturalistic explanation of how the diversity of life came to be," Dr. Byl said. As I have come to understand things, this is a misleading statement at best and it has to do with that ambiguous term, "naturalistic." What is it supposed to mean here? Dr. Byl does not make that clear so I must draw from what I have studied previously. According to most sources, from young-earth creationists to Christian philosophers, to say that evolution is "naturalistic" is to imply that it excludes or "rules out any supernatural activity of God in the origin and development of life and of humans," [2] which is consistent with the usage described in the Oxford English Dictionary. However, it must be acknowledged and understood that science, including evolutionary science, "presupposes methodological naturalism but not philosophical naturalism, and the two should not be confused" (emphasis mine). [3]

The scientific theory of evolution is a natural explanation but it is not a naturalistic one. It describes natural processes but that does not somehow magically rule God out. Christians are supposed to understand that the order and function of creation are sustained and governed by God through ordinary providence (i.e., second causes). Jesus Christ, "through whom also [God] created the world [...] upholds the universe by the word of his power" (Heb. 1:2–3). "All things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together" (Col. 1:15–17). "For from him and through him and to him are all things" (Rom. 11:36). [4] This presupposes the nearness and activity of God. As Daniel Macleod put it, "All the second causes owe their potency to [God], and the whole system is effective only because of his indwelling power." [5] So again, as I said, speaking of natural processes—even describing them in exquisite detail—does not somehow rule God out. Indeed it cannot, for this is his world. [6] (Atheists like Richard Dawkins or Jerry Coyne describe evolution in naturalistic terms, but then they're atheists so of course they do. And yet, according to the apostle Paul, they know better.)

Does the theory exclude or rule out God? No. As a strictly scientific theory, it is religiously neutral; God is neither excluded nor included. Is meteorology atheistic for not invoking God in its account of weather? Is biochemistry atheistic because it doesn't include God in descriptions of molecular structures? When someone asks me how a computer works, is my explanation atheistic if it doesn't involve theological language? These questions are rhetorical because the answer is most obvious: "Of course not." This is a point elegantly made by Denis Alexander who understood that the absence of specific references to God in an explanation does not render it suddenly naturalistic. "Naturalism," he points out, "is the philosophy that there is no God in the first place, so only an atheist can provide a truly naturalistic explanation for anything." [7]

As a matter of fact, neither evolution nor science is naturalistic (and yet both evolutionism and scientism are). They neither include nor exclude the "special or supernatural activity of God." They ignore it—and that's a good thing. Here I will return to Alexander and let him explain why:

There is a tradition in modern science not to use "God" as an explanation in scientific discourse. This tradition was nurtured by the early founders of the Royal Society partly in an attempt to let the natural philosophers (as scientists were then called) get on with their job without becoming embroiled in the religious disputes of the time, but also in recognition that the universe is, in any case, all the work of a wise Creator—so using God as an explanation for bits of it didn't really make much sense, given that God was in charge of all of it. [8]

Copernicus and Galileo are famous illustrations of when science becomes "embroiled" in theological disputes of the time, constituting a part of that historical, valuable lesson that we learned. Also, there is an element of delicious irony in the fact that creationists point to life's intricate complexity as evidence of God's workmanship or design when the scientists who discovered this complexity did so by setting aside the question of God and forcing themselves to pursue strictly natural explanations. Their scientific discoveries should be repugnant to creationists and rejected by them, not embraced and used by them—if they were to be consistent, that is.

At any rate, the limited competence of science does not extend to spiritual questions about the nature or activity of God. The degree to which creation is sustained and governed by God through ordinary providence is a theological question outside the purview of science. It is not as if we have "purely natural processes" for most things while invoking God is required for some other things (e.g., origin of life), for God is the creator and sustainer of the whole show, which means there is no such thing as "purely natural processes." That notion should be unintelligible to Christians. Honestly, we are not deists, so it would really do us a lot of good to stop sounding like deists.

Is evolution falsified by unanswered questions?

But even as a natural explanation of our planet's biodiversity, "there still remain huge gaps" in the theory, Dr. Byl said, and he lists 12 examples, such as: the existence of some species whose biogeographical distribution has not been explained by evolution; the complete lack of support for evolution from the fossil record; the inadequacy of natural selection to explain the spreading of certain traits within populations; the failure of molecular biology to map out a cladistic "tree of life"—and so on. (It is Dr. Byl who vouches for the accuracy of these claims. I reserve some serious doubts about a few of them.)

It is not clear how this is supposed to falsify evolution. What Dr. Byl has actually done is provide a vivid illustration of how science works. There are questions—a nearly unlimited number of questions ranging from trivial to substantial—and science is in the business of exploring them, with good science being done when every new thing we learn uncovers a host of new puzzles. Essentially, science is unending. This is not how theories are proven false, it's how they are proven fruitful—by uncovering ever more areas for further research and understanding. Science does not promise the final, complete, and absolute truth. In its naïve form it progressively approximates truth, but in its ideal form what it offers is the promise of endless questions with the potential for proving us wrong at any moment about something we thought we knew. Honestly, scientists will tell you that this is what gets them out of bed in the morning.

For example, let's assume for the sake of argument that there really are some species whose biogeographical distribution has not been explained by evolution. I have a hunch that's probably true. The thing is, that cannot count as a demerit or a strike against evolution because that's precisely the very nature of good science. Honestly, something lacking a cogent explanation commends itself as a question ripe for fresh hypotheses, for research and study. It doesn't indicate the poverty of a theory but it's fruitfulness because it's still generating things to investigate. Moreover, leaving something unexplained does not mean that evolution is false. That does not follow. It's not as if we are to consider theories as false unless and until they can explain every last conceivable thing.

The more difficult the question, the better. Let's see if we can figure out how those species came to live where they do and their relatedness to other species. We can study their life cycle, their behaviors, their genome, their habitat and more, proposing hypotheses and testing them. (Interestingly, there is currently an effort to map the genomes of all 1.8 million known species on the planet, something like the Human Genome Project but for all life on Earth.) As Dr. Byl showed, questions remain about the evolution of sex, of consciousness, of ethics, questions about convergent evolution, or the role and importance of natural selection, and so much more. Rather than counting against evolution, this is simply the nature of good science. So many genuinely challenging questions, curiosities, puzzles, and with more being added all the time.

I get it. Listen, sometimes we experience genuine existential angst about things, such as our identity, our security, our purpose, the meaning of our lives and what have you. On these issues we need and look for clear, immutable answers, something solid that our fleeting lives can grip firmly. But notice that these are spiritual questions answered by the grace and peace of God's covenant promises and purposes secured for us by the shed blood of Christ who is our eternal hope, the author and finisher of our faith. These are categorically different from scientific questions.

The way I see it, science is about grasping the sublime value of unanswered questions and of getting things wrong, all of which can lead to advances in learning, understanding, and knowledge. In my home we emphasize and underscore the value of asking questions. Be curious, imaginative, and filled with wonder. Learn how to form clear and relevant questions and how to develop possible answers (i.e., hypotheses), and then rigorously test them. But also see the great value in getting it wrong, because the potential to learn something new just opened up to you, which is awesome. Incomplete answers leave questions to be addressed, and wrong answers open up new avenues to investigate. We were wrong about atoms being the most basic particle in creation. Then we thought it was protons but, actually, there are more basic things still. And it now seems that we were wrong about quarks. Maybe we'll be wrong about spinons, orbitons, and holons. Being wrong has contributed enormous volumes of knowledge and understanding.

It's just good science.

(Part 3 is forthcoming, where we look at evolution's failed predictions and Cornelius G. Hunter's list.)

John M. Bauer
@JohnMBauer1
Approx. 1,800 words

----------
Footnotes:

Unless otherwise indicated, all Scripture quotations are from the Holy Bible, English Standard Version (ESV), copyright © 2001 by Crossway, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

[1] John Byl, "Is Evolution Unfalsified?" Bylogos (blog), August 28, 2015 (accessed December 24, 2018).

[2] "Report of the Creation Study Committee," Studies and Actions of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America, 27th General Assembly (PCA Historical Center – Archives and Manuscript Repository for the Continuing Presbyterian Church, 1999). The Committee defined evolution as "naturalistic" because they did not understand the statement they had referenced from the National Association of Biology Teachers (NABT).

[3] J. P. Moreland and William Lane Craig, Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2003), 358. This point of view has been variously described as "philosophical naturalism," "ontological naturalism," and "metaphysical naturalism," but they all refer to the same atheistic perspective. Also, for an informative, compelling, and balanced discussion on methodological naturalism being the basis of science, read Jim Stump's contribution on pages 106–111 in Kenneth Keathley, J. B. Stump, and Joe Aguirre, eds., Old-Earth or Evolutionary Creation: Discussing Origins with Reasons to Believe and BioLogos (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2017).

[4] Here is a good place to mention the ancient footings secured by Irenaeus and eloquently developed by Karl Barth and other christological supralapsarians, for whom the incarnation and atonement are the purpose of creation from the beginning. See for example Edwin van Driel, Incarnation Anyway: Arguments for Supralapsarian Christology (New York: Oxford University Press, 2008).

[5] Donald Macleod, Behold Your God (Tain: Christian Focus, 1990) 50. As cited in the "Report of the Creation Study Committee."

[6] Ruling God out requires more explicit language. According to the PCA Creation Study Committee, an earlier version of the NABT statement had included the term "unsupervised." That would rule God out. However, it would also be unscientific, which is probably why it was removed.

[7] Denis R. Alexander, Creation or Evolution: Do We Have to Choose? (Oxford, UK: Monarch, 2008), 185–186.

[8] Ibid., 183–184. Emphasis mine.