The Natural vs. the Supernatural 

In our everyday experience with the world God made, we perceive that God normally works through ordinary means - which we often refer to as the laws of nature.  But we also know that God transcends the created order, and is therefore not bound by His own creation.  For example, when Christ turned water into wine, healed the sick, made the blind to see and was Himself raised from the dead, God was working contrary to the normal everyday patterns of providence that we might observe in the laboratory.  In the Reformed tradition, neither mode of divine providence is inherently more spiritual than the other.  The Westminster Confession of Faith puts it like this:

“Although, in relation to the foreknowledge and decree of God, the first Cause, all things come to pass immutably, and infallibly; yet, by the same providence, He ordereth them to fall out, according to the nature of second causes, either necessarily, freely, or contingently.”

“God, in His ordinary providence, maketh use of means, yet is free to work without, above, and against them, at His pleasure.” - Chapter V.

Now let us turn our attention to creation.  When God created the heavens, the earth, and all living things, He was likewise free to either work ”according to the nature of second causes” or “without, above, and against them” - as He saw fit.  Let’s skip over the vast cosmos for the time being and focus specifically on God’s creation of the many species that populate the earth.  We can all agree that God is responsible for this, but how did He accomplish it?  Was it “according to the nature of second causes” or was it “without, above, and against them”?  Either way should leave us some clues.  And these clues may or may not conclusively reveal the method God used to populate the earth.  But for most Christians, the issue is not merely a scientific question.  Our theology seems inextricably tied to certain assumptions about the physical origin of man, including his original paradisal state and subsequent fall from grace - so there is more at stake then just getting the science right.

Different Creation Models

In order to safeguard our theology, many Christians assume that a faithful interpretation of God’s Word demands a strict adherence to the special creation model - a theologically satisfying belief that all living things were created as separate and distinct “kinds” and that these “kinds” are not biologically related to one another.  Admittedly, this is a “clean” and theologically sound version of natural history.  It fits neatly with what the Bible teaches us about the Creation or Adamic Covenant, the devastating and sweeping effects of sin on creation, the penalty of death for all who are born into sin, and the redeeming work of Jesus Christ who came to liberate the entire creation from the curse of sin.  For those of us who like our theology to fit neatly into man-made systems that we can easily wrap our finite minds around, the special creation model is a no-brainer.  Why bother with anything else?  Any scientific challenge to the historical details of the Garden of Eden scenario raises some very uncomfortable questions with no theologically satisfying answers.  So for those of us who appreciate historic orthodoxy and aren’t that interested in being shaken from our theological fortresses, the special creation model is definitely the preferred choice.  And so we dutifully scan the created order looking for physical clues that reinforce this scientific worldview. 

For those Christians who aren’t comfortable with arbitrarily lengthening the Genesis “days” of creation, there is a young-earth version of the special creation model that believes all living things were created only a few thousand years ago.  But for those Christians who can’t quite turn their backs on (or brains against) modern astronomy, geology, and archaeology, there is an old-earth version of the special creation model that believes God could have introduced new life forms many times throughout the natural history of earth.  In both cases, a non-negotiable, a-priori, assumption is the special creation of mankind.  In other words, when it comes to the rest of creation, our theology can tolerate God working “according to the nature of second causes” but when it comes to life on earth and the human race in particular, we prefer to think of God working “without, above, or against them” (at least for the original human couple).

But scientists prefer natural things to have purely naturalistic explanations, and they (with the help of many Christians) have developed a different model of biological creation called common descent.  This model claims that a single “kind” could have given rise to, as Darwin put it,  “endless forms most beautiful” over most of the earth’s 4.5 billion year natural history.  There are several lines of physical evidence used to support the common descent model of creation.  But if God requires His people to believe in the doctrine of special creation, could there have been other reasons for Him to give us so much evidence to the contrary?  If the special creation model does not also require these same lines of evidence, why didn’t God seize the opportunity to give us clues that point specifically to the special creation of all living things?  Or perhaps the scientists, beholden to their obvious naturalistic bent, have misinterpreted the data?  And in doing so they somehow managed to drag several evangelical scientists along with them?

Comparative Anatomy 

The fact that all living things fall neatly into a nested hierarchy based on their anatomical similarities and differences (comparative anatomy) is certainly consistent with common descent, but is this the only valid interpretation of the data?  While a non-trivial phylogeny (family tree) is required by the common descent model, there seems to be no obvious reason for this pattern to exists if special creation were true.  In fact, if God had just designed a few creatures that did not fit this pattern, such as a placental frog or a feathered horse, the entire model of common descent could be challenged scientifically.  And if there were enough of these anatomically-rogue species, comparative anatomy would be powerful evidence in support of the special creation model.  So why did God not settle this when He had the chance?  Was this a missed opportunity?  A deliberate test of faith?  An unfortunate oversight?  Or did God have other reasons to purposely design all creatures with physical features that fit the nested hierarchical pattern?  We could all probably come up with some good reasons.  So let’s be honest, comparative anatomy is a curious fact of nature, but by itself doesn’t prove conclusively that evolution is true and special creation is false.

The Fossil Record

If one assumes that the standard phylogeny based on comparative anatomy is a “roadmap” of biological creation, then what happened to all the “road-kill” that came and went along the way?  Has life on earth remained relatively unchanged over the years as the special creation model would seem to suggest, or is there a biological progression up through the geological column?  And if there is such a progression, does it reflect the standard phylogeny based on comparative anatomy?  I think we all know the answer to that question.  Again, why is there a universal pattern of faunal succession in the first place?  Why are multicellular organisms the first things to clearly appear in the fossil record?  Why do they give way to jawless fish, which give way to fish with jaws, followed by amphibians with fish-like features and then amphibians with reptile-like features?  Why to reptiles give way to mammals and birds?  And why is there a fairly convincing progression from the primate branch of the family tree leading up to modern humans?  While this pattern of faunal succession is absolutely required for the common descent model have any credibility, it is completely unnecessary if each “kind” was created separate and distinct.  So what’s going on here?  Is this another missed opportunity?  Another scientific stumbling block to separate the theological wheat from the heretical chaff?  Or could God have purposely staggered His created “kinds” out over billions of years to keep pace with the changing earth?  Some of these possibilities may be more scientific than others, but they are viable in a world created and sustained by God.  So, as was the case with comparative anatomy, the fossil record by itself doesn’t necessarily prove that evolution is true and special creation is false.  In fact, so much of the fossil record is still missing that it is often used as evidence against evolution - which is slightly disingenuous given the multitude of transitional forms that have been found.  But the fossil record is another curious fact of nature.  And when taken together with the standard phylogeny, the scales start tipping towards descent with modification.

Biogeography

In order for creation via common descent to work, populations have to diverge from a common branch along separate evolutionary paths.  If all members of a particular species keep interbreeding with each other’s descendants, then no population of that species would ever accumulate enough diversity to start a new branch on the universal tree of life.  So speciation requires diversification, and diversification requires isolation.  Once an isolated population accumulates enough genetic changes, it can no longer breed with the other members of that species - and a new species is born.  The special creation model requires no such geographic isolation, but the common descent model demands that the observed patterns of biogeography be consistent with both the observed pattern of faunal succession and the observed pattern of nested hierarchies from comparative anatomy.  Could this spell the death of evolution?  Can we find marsupial mammals all over the world living among the placental mammals?  Or are they all confined to a single isolated continent?  Do the Galapagos Islands contain the same flora and fauna as the Hawaiian Islands?  Or are the Galapagos island only populated with species that resemble those in South America, a few hundred miles away?  And why are the only species native to the Hawaiian islands, the most geographically remote place on earth, able to either fly (bats, birds and insects) or produce eggs and seeds that can survive a saltwater journey of thousands of miles?  And why did God not spread some of these native Hawaiian species to other parts of the earth?  That certainly would have confused the evolutionists! 

Unfortunately, there is no apparent reason, other than speciation caused by geographical isolation, for the observed patterns of biogeography.  In fact, this is what led Charles Darwin to develop the theory of evolution.  But like the other lines of evidence, this situation could have so easily been avoided since special creation doesn’t require any specific patterns of biogeography.  If God had just distributed things a little more evenly across the globe, Darwin might not have ever dreamed of his ”dangerous idea” while traveling the world and making these observations.  Was this another missed opportunity by the Creator to give us the correct data?  Even with an old-earth creationist model where God progressively creates different things in different places at different times, there is no apparent reason for such a distinct and telling pattern.  In fact, an old-earth creationist model would have provided even more opportunities for God to confuse the scientists than are afforded by the young-earth creationist model, which is severely constrained by the great flood of Noah.  I’m still trying to figure out why all the world’s marsupial mammals traveled directly from Mt. Ararat to Australia without stopping and populating any territory along the way?  Or why one species of elephants only traveled to India and another species of elephants only traveled to Africa?  Or why the Tasmanian devils only populated New Zeland after the flood?  Strange indeed.

A Challenging Consensus of Data

To be honest with you, biogeography by itself does not prove that evolution is true and special creation is false.  But taken together with comparative anatomy and the fossil record, it makes for a strange coincidence.  Each of these lines of evidence independently fulfills the predictions of the common descent model - conditions that must be met for the model to be viable.  And none of these same conditions are necessary consequences of the special creation model.  Any rational person has to ask themselves why they exist if they don’t have to?  And why, if God requires us to believe in special creation, are these other patterns so obvious?  But even when each of these lines of evidence are taken together, there could still be other ways to interpret the data from within a worldview that allows the Creator to work “without, above, or against” the laws of nature.  I will freely admit that any creation model requiring special creation miracles is unscientific by definition - but that doesn’t mean it can’t be true.  Not every truth is necessarily a scientific fact.  The resurrection of Jesus Christ is unscientific by definition, but this event was witnessed by many and recorded for all.  So we accepted it on the authority of God’s Word alone.  But then again, if the Romans had paraded the dead body of Jesus through the streets of Jerusalem on resurrection day, we would all be going to synagague this Saturday.  So there must still be a rational component to our faith. 

History Repeats Itself

So the problem here is not a lack of viable special creation alternatives.  We can always dream up a scenario to explain the observable data in terms of special creation.  The problem here is more of a tactical one.  At what point do Christians concede that while there have clearly been more than enough opportunities for God to make His creative actions known, He either (1) failed to take advantage of them, (2) intentionally chose to create tension between science and faith, or (3) actually used a natural process of creation similar to common descent, the details of which we have yet to fully understand.  And are the consequence of one choice any better than the others?  At this juncture, we are like those medieval Christians caught between the novel heliocentric theory of Copernicus and Galileo, and the traditional geocentric theory of Aristotle - which still had the full support of the Church and some from within the scientific community.  The reasons for the Church’s opposition to heliocentricism were very similar to the reasons we tend to oppose common descent today.  The science is not perceived to be all that conclusive, and we have have a good bit of theology invested in the traditional system. 

We tend to forget that in medieval cosmology, heaven was “up there” and hell was “down below”.  These were not just symbolic terms used to describe spiritual realities that transcend space and time, but they were considered physical locations in the cosmos.  And the Aristotelian portait of the heavens as perfect, eternal, and unchanging fit nicely with the Biblical portrait of the heavens as God’s Holy dwelling place.  And Aristotle’s underworld seemed the ideal place for the devil and his minions.  So you can image what a scandal it was to take the earth, the realm of sin and death, and elevate it up into the heavens, home to God and His angles.  Moreover, the integrity of the Bible itself was at stake.  Of the 67 passages of Scripture that describe the earth’s relationship to the heavens, they all refer to either the earth as “fixed” or the “motion” of the heavens.  So the issue was not just a question of physical science, but there was a serious theological component to the debate.  Sound familiar?

On the scientific front, the geocentric model was being challenged by several lines of physical evidence such as the observation of Jupiter’s moons and the phases of Venus, but Galileo’s telescope had failed to reveal any stellar parallax, a phenomena required by a moving earth - consider it the “missing link” of heliocentric theory.  And this “missing link” provided scientific fodder for many to keep their theological grip on the geocentric model.  The Tychonic system was a serious attempt by astronomers loyal to geocentricism to explain the phases of Venus in accordance with the geocentric model.  But when telescope resolution became sufficient to measure stellar parallax and thus confirm the earth’s orbit in1838, and Foucault’s pendulum demonstrated the earth’s daily rotation in 1851, it became futile to resist the moving earth any longer.

Have we reached a similar point in our opposition to common descent?  Are we nearing that point where continued opposition to a scientific reality hurts the kingdom of God more than it helps its inevitable advance?  I think we are.  In fact, there is one line of evidence so telling that it is difficult to imagine any reasonable interpretation other than the common descent model.   So in a few days (give or take a few days), I will follow up with Part 2.  Since many who oppose evolution like to mystify the public with astronomical numbers that supposedly reflect the improbabilities of evolution, I will provide some handy figures to balance these arguments from incredulity with a balanced response. 

-GJG

This entry was posted on Wednesday, December 19th, 2007 at 11:42 am and is filed under Random Things. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.