What We Have Against Evolution

Graphic design is my passion

One of our readers, Ash, asked me why we don’t accept evolution. I believe the question is for those of us who are more “open-minded” vis-à-vis science. Why is evolution worse? Why is evolution treated like Rosa Parks on a bus to an Aryan Brotherhood convention? I can't speak for all of us, but in very rough terms, my view of the conflict between science and Creation is as follows (see here):

1. We don't understand the Torah completely, and especially Ma'aseh Bereishis.

2. Even if we did understand it, it is reasonable to assume that the Torah is simply not telling us all the information.

3. Science (or more precisely, what scientists claim they have evidence for) is probably partially or completely wrong on certain matters.

4. It makes sense that Hashem created the world aged, to some degree or another, not to test us, but because that would be the best world to create.

Therefore, although I do find the evidence for the age of the earth pretty convincing, it doesn't bother me all that much. I don’t feel that I need to know exactly what happened or how the Latest and Greatest Science fits into each pasuk of Bereishis, especially since I won’t die from a question.

Similarly, if evolution made sense to me, I might have difficulty fitting it into the Torah the way Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan does, but it wouldn't be comparable to, say, claiming the Mabul is an allegory (which is a flat-out rejection of the Torah's narrative and is unambiguously kefira). So it’s inaccurate for me to say I object to evolution only because I think the Torah has a different account. 

On the other hand, although I do have some science education, I don’t feel qualified to question the judgment of professional scientists. Therefore, even though creationists (including highly educated ones and scientists) dispute the evidence for evolution, it wouldn't make sense for me to take their side on purely scientific grounds, any more than taking the side of the anti-vaxxers against the entire medical establishment (Sorry Shimshon! I’m a retard!)

The objection

Rather, my objection to evolution is a function of the fact that, thanks to common sense, my religious outlook, and by the guidance of the Holy Torah, I see spectacular design in the world, as opposed to the atheistic viewpoint, that refuses to acknowledge that design and considers it illusory. (See Rabbi Moshe Averick and the atheists fighting endlessly about this point here, one of a billion examples on the internet). This has an effect on the way I view the theory in two ways

1. It changes whether the mechanism of evolution makes sense in the first place.

2. It changes whether I am convinced by the evidence that is put forth for it.

Regarding the first point, the overwhelming consensus of science is Darwinian evolution or natural selection, that is, random mutations are blindly selected by nature through the imparting incremental advantages via the beneficial ones, which causes the recipients of these beneficial mutations to outbreed the rest of the population. Eventually such mutations accumulate until the population has developed sophisticated biological structures that had not existed millions of years prior. 

From an atheistic (erroneous) point of view, this all makes perfect sense. There is no "order" in the universe, any design that we see is an illusion, our own projection and analogization from objects that we create. Therefore, when a creature develops arms or eyes, there is no design, no cohesive, sophisticated machine, but simply a collection of chaotic mutations piling up on top of each other, that happen to be better adapted to external pressure than the competition.

But I (very correctly) don't see the world that way at all. When I see an arm, an eye, a heart, a brain, I see an amazing system in action. There is simply no way this could have developed on its own with unguided natural selection. The whole idea makes not an iota of sense, and I have never found a remotely sufficient response to this objection, besides for denying that it exists, that is, the atheistic point of view.

Since natural selection is the overwhelming consensus for the mechanism of evolution, I already have a problem with the theory, no matter what else happens. It is not possible to separate the mechanism of evolution from the theory of evolution. Atheistic natural selection is not simply one component of the theory of evolution, it is the central claim of the theory, the “design without a designer”, the “blind watchmaker”. If I can’t agree with the central claim, I'm not going to simply assume that evolution somehow works in some other mysterious way.

The evidence of evolution

What about the mountains of evidence for evolution? This is generally evidence that allegedly demonstrates common descent, and fits into two main categories:

1. We see things that we would expect to see if common descent and evolution was true, but we wouldn't (necessarily) expect if all species were created from scratch. In other words, the facts on the ground seem consistent with evolution.

2. The model of common descent and evolution allows us to make correct predictions and is useful in science and medicine.

The first category includes evidence such as:

• the fossil record (simpler lifeforms precede more sophisticated ones, and scientists claim to see in this some sort of transition, with steps, between ancient and more recent organisms)

• homology (similarities between different species in body structures, organs, DNA, that as far as we know, shouldn't be biologically necessary if not for common descent)

• the existence of nested hierarchical taxonomies in nature (the ability to categorize species by objective, absolute differences, that can be further broken down into subcategories with absolute differences; for example, all species can be broken down into vertebrates and invertebrates, the vertebrates can be broken down into those with jaws and those without, etc.)

• the existence of vestigial structures (bodily structures that seem unnecessary or not suited for their purpose, and look like they are leftovers from an ancestor that used them)

• and biogeography (the fact that some continents and islands possess completely different species or patterns of life than anywhere else).

Mountains of evidence?

Evolutionists claim that these are features that we would expect if evolution was true, but would not expect if everything was created from scratch. Creationists strongly dispute this and assert that we would not necessarily expect all of these features as a result of evolution, but we might expect them, or at least understand them, as the result of a Creator (and perhaps a worldwide Flood). For example, they ask why life would necessarily develop as a nested hierarchy if evolution can confer new traits that are not ancestral? Why wouldn’t evolution give feathers to mammals if they would be beneficial? Especially since there are plenty of cases where science admits to "convergent evolution", that is, two completely separate species developing very similar advantageous traits independently. And on the other hand, they can point to examples of nested hierarchical taxonomies in man-made objects.

As for myself, my impression (but this is only my impression, it doesn’t refute any particular piece of evidence) is that everything is used as evidence of evolution. Difference between species is evidence of evolution. Similarities between species is evidence of evolution. Differences in biogeography is evidence of evolution. Similarities in biogeography is evidence of evolution. Traits that are optimal for survival are evidence of evolution. Traits that are not optimal for survival (vestigial) are evidence of evolution. Uh, ok. When literally anything can be explained by evolution, and not only explained, but used to prove it, that doesn’t quite do it for me, personally.

However, despite my reservations with the evidence, I would feel unqualified to dismiss it on a purely scientific basis, as I mentioned before. If this was just a neutral topic, or just a matter of understanding the Torah somewhat differently, I would forget about my reservations and go with the overwhelming majority, as I do with vaccines. But unfortunately, the proffered mechanism of evolution is predicated on denial of design, which is false and nonsensical, and so the evolutionist side of the story doesn’t even get off the ground.

It’s a similar story with the second category of evidence, the ability of the evolution model to predict and its practical use. I already know that just because a model is predictive doesn't mean that it is correct, but at most, that it is useful. For their part, creationists point to many seemingly failed evolutionary predictions. For example, we would expect evolution to proceed very slowly, and the existence of the Cambrian explosion and other sudden appearances of new organisms runs counter to this expectation, something that Darwin already complained about (of course, evolutionists have an explanation for this, but in the end of the day, the expectation was disappointed).

Jerry Coyne has the following line in his book, Why Evolution is True (page 57):

Asked what observation could conceivably disprove evolution, the curmudgeonly biologist J. B. S. Haldane reportedly growled, 'Fossil rabbits in the Precambrian!'

Yet, curmudgeonly growling and grumbling notwithstanding, this is simply and trivially false. If rabbits were discovered in the Precambrian, science would just have to update the evolutionary model, not throw out the whole thing. They would simply have to conclude that a strain of mammals evolved independently, much earlier than previously believed. Science is constantly finding new, unexpected discoveries that are the opposite of what the evolutionary model had previously taught. If falsification doesn’t actually have consequences for the theory, then the theory is practically unfalsifiable.

And that’s ok. The idea that falsifiability is critical to science is a myth. It’s not a big deal if evolution is unfalsifiable. And it certainly doesn’t topple evolution’s status as a predictive model. After all, almost no predictive model can be expected to be foolproof. However, it’s quite another matter to start using that as a proof for the underlying theory. And again, I know that evolutionists will adamantly dispute this and give a thousand-and-one excuses for why the predictive abilities of evolution never, ever failed, even once. But creationist counter-arguments give me more than sufficient cause to doubt, and the fact is that the standard underlying mechanism that is used to explain evolution is simply absurd, as I explained before, so there is nothing to even start with.

Non-Darwinian or theistic evolution

It is true that natural selection is not the only theory that has been advanced to explain evolution. There is a whole list of alternative hypotheses, and some of them are non-random and are consistent with the design, albeit indirect, of a Creator. Unfortunately, these proposals are all either considered obsolete, crackpot theories, highly speculative, or marginal in the overall scheme of natural selection, and are not recognized by science as plausible alternatives.

Some people believe in God and see design in the world, yet feel forced to deal with the evidence for evolution, which in their view, is overwhelming. They accept the mechanism of natural selection, but understand that God arranged the laws of nature in such a way that life would somehow develop and evolve, against all odds. In essence, God indirectly guided all forms of life into being through some sort of initial arrangement of natural forces. I believe this is the path that, to his credit, Natan Slifkin takes in Chapter 22 of The Challenge of Creation (how very mystical of him.)

The problem with this answer is the opposite, namely, that it is not consistent with classic, undirected natural selection, although he would like it to be. It requires the invention of completely new, speculative, and mysterious laws of nature, originally set in motion by God, that somehow bring about the design that we see, via natural selection. This is not in concordance with the current scientific position on the matter that does not recognize such an arrangement and relies almost exclusively on natural selection alone.

Nevertheless, is it possible that science will eventually come up with some sort of approach like this, along with a viable scientific explanation? Who knows, maybe. And would such an approach somehow fit with the Torah? Again, maybe.

But for now, I see no compelling reason to go along with strange and unexplained speculation that the overwhelming majority of the scientific community doesn’t currently accept. What do I gain by that over Bereishis? From my perspective, the scientific consensus regarding the atheistic, unguided mechanism of evolution is impossible and nonsensical, and the alternatives are not considered plausible by the scientific community, and so I am right back to where I started. This is my problem with evolution.