Evolution

Well, I have just a quick post primarily because I've been thinking so hard on this the last few days and I feel I just need some sort of outlet. As Christians, what are we to think of the idea of evolution? I have generally in the past been agnostic about the whole thing as I know very little about the world of biology. I am very much regretting this as I feel as though getting into the topic has plunged me into a very heated world where many feelings are involved and in many cases, reason, truth, and any semblance of objectivity are hard to come by.

On the one hand are creationists using dubious arguments and faulty reason to cast down scientific findings- this is sort of the "evolution is the devil" stance. On the other hand we have biologists like Jay Gould or Richard Dawkins who declares that evolution is a certainty that you'd have to be a "ignorant, stupid or insane" to not believe it.

What is a philosophy/engineering student to do when evaluating a topic so far out of his specialization? Basically, I've decided to proceed carefully. Here's some observations from the beginning of the search.

1) The distinction between micro-evolution and macro-evolution is very much necessary. Species adapt, certainly. This has been shown in many ways. To deny this, it seems, is to deny reason and science. However, to enter the world of macro-evolution, that is, universal common ancestry and everything that goes along with it, is to enter into much murkier waters. This is inevitably where philosophy and speculation are brought to the fore (though scientists are very rarely explicit about when they enter into this kind of reasoning- a good philosopher of science is one who can point out when this shift has occurred.)

2.)We have, in the words of Kosso, gone past appearance- and into making claims about reality. Without time machines we can create possible theories and test their feasibility, but we have no way to look at how something actually happened. Whenever the word 'fact' comes out when referring to something that occurred millions of years ago, listeners should immediately be wary.

3.)While there are many dubious arguments against the theory of evolution, it seems that there are some very serious objections from brilliant scientists, philosophers, and philosopher-scientists. Some of the best come from Darwin himself.

4.) One thing my philosophy of science class has shown me is the subjectivity of science. As we've progressed through the history of science it is very clear that motivations of the heart of men, whether good or ill, very much inform the direction of science and how we think and feel about theories. The history of science shows its susceptibility to denial of plain truth and mob mentality. Science as cold, objective truth is a myth.

5.) The theory of evolution is essentially the only place for a naturalist (atheist) to set his flag on. Essentially, if this theory fails to account for the diversity of species, he is in an impossible position. This is huge. We get a picture here that this theory must be the fortress that the atheist must defend vehemently, the hill he must live or die on. This accounts for a variety of phenomena:

• The exaggerations by men like Dawkins, Gould, Hitchens, etc. on the certainty of the theory. You see, their entire worldview hangs on the truth of this theory.
  
• Silencing in the academic world of those who question Darwinism. This happens from internet forums to prestigious academic institutions. I've already noticed that the ad-hominem fallacy that has become a regular thing- think of the intended connotation that goes along with the word "creationist" coming from naturalists.
  
• The evidence needed to throw this theory would be (impossibly?) huge because of the emotions tied into and need for evolutionary theory. Atheistic scientists are a position where they are virtually forced to reformulate their theory rather than begin seeking a new one.

6.)With certain elementary objections (like that of the eye, the serious lack of transitional forms in the fossil record, etc.) I think Plantinga puts it best (he is using the eye in this case):
"...We don't really know whether evolution is so much as biologically possible: maybe there is no path through that space. It is epistemically possible that evolution has occurred: that is, we don't know that it hasn't; for all we know, it has. But it doesn't follow that it is biologically possible... Assuming that it is biologically possible, furthermore, we don't know that it is not prohibitively improbable (in the statistical sense), given the time available. But then (given the Christian faith and leaving to one side our evaluation of the evidence from early Genesis) the right attitude towards the claim of universal common descent is, I think, one of a certain interested but wary skepticism. It is possible (epistemically possible) that this is how things happened; God could have done it that way; but the evidence is ambiguous. That it is possible is clear; that it happened is doubtful; that it is certain, however, is ridiculous.

7) Finally, it appears to me that there is a large amount of uncertainty right now (which explains why there is pushback- it is hard to imagine numerous volumes coming out from scientists and philosophers if there is simply nothing to question. In the words of Ben Franklin, "If everyone is thinking alike, then no one is thinking". It appears that for some time we will have to live with uncertainty. What happened all those years ago? Time, perhaps (and perhaps not) will show how the Lord has done it. I believe with either theory, Christians are alright (and therefore free to pursue truth in this matter in a way that naturalists cannot given the limiting nature of their presuppositions.)