In 1859 Charles Darwin published his great work on “origin of species”. His basic claim was that all organisms (ourselves included) are products of a slow natural process of development (evolution) from just one or a few forms. No longer is the word evolution limited to its biological roots, it is most often broadened to represent the worldview of evolutionary naturalism also known as Darwinism.
Darwinism posed a severe challenge to Christian theology. Probably no aspect of theology escaped the need for re-evaluation in the light of Darwinism. The church’s understanding of creation, fall, redemption, nature of morality, the ultimate destiny of human beings were all at a very fundamental level called into question. Any educated Christian, at some time in their career would have recognized the chasm between the ‘professor’s science’ and ‘mother’s religions’. Christians who are scientifically inclined face an apparently hopeless dilemma: either to accept a rigid Biblical literalism or accept a science whose assumptions are fundamentally naturalistic. This article will explore some of the issues that lurk in the background of the controversy. As Christians it is important to have a big picture of the controversy if we wish to be effective in presentation of the gospel to a scientifically knowledgeable world, in the days to come. The aim of this article is to place the debate in its larger context. If the broad context is missed the controversy can degrade into a shouting match that generated more hostility than learning.
One might think that the battle between science and theology in general and evolution & creation in particular is had been settled long ago. However recent statements by scientists believe this thought. For instance Richard Dawkins an atheist biologist declares, “Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist”. ON a similar vein, Harvard University geneticist Richard Lewontin has written that, “Scientists must stick to philosophical materialism regardless of evidence because we cannot allow a divine foot in the door . . . To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen”. Harvard palaeontologist Stephen Jay Gould deplores religious people interfering with the authority of scientists to determine the facts – one of the facts being that God is merely a comforting myth. Darwinism is far from dead; it is continually proclaimed in the text books and media as an unchangeable fact.

One of the major reasons for the dominance of the theory is not science but philosophy. It reassures secularists that they need not worry about a creator. The theory is the main prop for the worldview known as naturalism. Unquestioning belief in this fantastic theory is regarded in our culture as a touchstone of rationality, and doubt in any form an indication of fanaticism. In our culture, science and science alone has unqualified intellectual acceptance. The worldview of our times tells us when religion fights science, science wins! Many think then it is not wiser to fight at all. We have come to a stage when materialism, naturalism, Darwinism and atheism are roughly equivalent terms to express the idea that everything is a product of chance and natural law. The crucial question is whether the theory of evolution is a scientific argument based on empirical evidence or is it a logical consequence of naturalistic assumptions on how to do science.
Christian theologians since Darwin’s days have reacted to Darwin’s interpretation of natural history. Unfortunately Christian reaction to the issue has not been unanimous. As was mentioned in an earlier issue of TFT, there are at least three distinct schools of thought that was developed as a Christian response to the controversy:
Recent Creation (Young Earth Creationism)
Progressive Creation (Old Earth Creation)
Theistic Evolution (Fully Gifted Creation)
Two of the key issues that separates position 1 and position 2 above are how to interpret the word day in Genesis 1 and 2 (whether it represents a literal 24 hours day or long periods of time) and the nature of the Flood (whether the flood was local or global). ‘Recent creation’ puts the age of the earth at some thousands of years while ‘old earth’ position talks in terms of 12-16 billion years along with the scientific community. Both these positions tend to cast the discussions in an either/or format. The third position is a sort of compromise position between evolution and creation. It refuses to shape the discussion in an either/or format. Note that it is theistic evolution. Theistic evolution considers evolution as a process initiated by and guided by god in order to bring about the existence of human beings. It is important to recognize at the outset itself that there are good Christians cutting across evangelical and fundamental circles who sincerely hold these different positions. Unfortunately Christians have concentrated more on the specifics of the issue (e.g. the age of the universe/earth) at the expense of taking time to evaluate the faulty philosophy of science that lies beneath it.

HISTORICAL OVERVIEW OF THE DIALOGUE:
In the twentieth century, the following five developments have contributed to change the landscape of the controversy. Within the secular academic main stream, Darwinism was challenged with the rise of post modernism. They began to question the ‘truth’ of scientific theories. Post modernism with its emphasis on the subjective intuitive dimension of truth was not ready to swallow the objective/empirical claims of the evolutionary theory.
“Young Earth Creationism” which was influential with lay people in traditionalist Christian circles began to develop more sophisticated line of reasoning. Efforts were made to offer a positive theoretical model and not just to attack evolutionary ideas. This movement continues to be ridiculed and attacked by the secular media and academy. Organizations such as the Creation Research Society, the Bible-Science Association and the Institute for Creation Research spearhead this movement. Henry Morris and Duane Gish are the two popular names associated with this movement.
Another important shift in the debate is the revival of a more thoughtful form (at the same time theologically conservative) of Theistic Evolution. Christian scientists developed new ways of integrating the finding of modern science and theology allowing for God’s action in creation without in any way limiting the scope of scientific research. Howard J. Van Till, Arthur Peacock, Richard Bube are some of the names associated with this approach. The internet in what is known as ‘Old Earth Creationism’ both in academic and lay evangelical circles have been on the rise. These Christians while rejecting Darwinian Evolution accepted the evidence for an old earth/universe. This group was often caught in the middle being too conservative for theistic evolutionists and too accommodating for young earth creationists. Ministries like Reasons To Believe and speakers such as Hugh Ross represent this movement.
The new “Intelligent Design Movement” sparked by the writings of Phillip E. Johnson a law professor at Berkeley has already gathered sufficient momentum to face Darwinism. This movement is neutral on specific Biblical questions and age of the universe and has creationists from both the young earth and old earth camps although they part company with theistic evolutionists. This movement can be perceived as a philosophical critique of Darwinism without going into theological and scientific questions underlying the issue. William Dembski, Paul Nelson, Stephen Meyer, Nancy Pearcy, Michael Behe are other names associated with this movement. The central issues in the debate are
1. Philosophical
2. Biblical/theological
3. Scientific.
The above three Christian responses have centered around the theological and scientific aspects of the controversy without much focus on the philosophical underpinnings of the evolutionary paradigm. The issue can be evaluated under three broad categories.
Science – theology interaction problems
Philosophy of science (competing models)
Loopholes in the theory.

SCIENCE – THEOLOGY INTERACTION PROBLEMS
The first step is to grasp a model helpful for understanding the overall relationship between science and theology. In general science and theology have different purposes and focus, with scripture focussing on qualitative issues of purpose and meaning while science concentrating on quantitative issues of process and structure. We also recognize that because God is the creator of nature and the author of scripture, some areas of overlap between scientific and theological concerns are to be expected. Therefore we cannot relegate science and theology into non-interacting watertight compartments. Notice that both general revelation and special revelation are revelation. That means it discloses something about God. For example, if science explores the origin of the universe through empirical research it should point to an intelligent first cause unless the philosophy of science restricts itself in finding any non-material, non-empirical cause. Similarly theology when it explores God’s special revelation will arrive at more specific attributes of the first cause. Thus science and theology can interact with each other without creating any conflict.
One of the questions we have to address in this context is: When science (interpretation of general revelation) and theology (interpretation of special revelation) are in apparent tension which should carry more epistemological weight? Within each knowledge base (of science and theology) particular beliefs are help with differing levels of confidence. This should not surprise us in any way. This is an unavoidable outcome of being human – we are not omniscient. C.S. Lewis, in one of his essays makes an excellent pint about the difference between the teacher’s analogy and students’ analogy. As the teacher knows the subject thoroughly, she can therefore construct a picture to help us understand it which is profoundly correct. The student do not yet know the subject thoroughly and the pictures constructed by her may contain serous errors of which she may be unaware. Scripture and nature are “teacher’s picture” while science and theology are ‘student’s notes”. Therefore our interpretations of empirical evidence and scripture, both are fallible. Therefore intellectual humility is appropriate in all cases.

Philosophy of science (competing models)
There are two major issues involved in an honest critique of Darwinism. Fist is the recognition that Darwinism is more than a scientific theory. It is naturalism (atheism) masquerading as science. So any critique of Darwinism entails a critique of the naturalism as a worldview. The Second aspect flows from the first. In a naturalistic worldview the nature of science will also be interpreted in naturalistic terms. One again two definitions of science namely theistic science and methodological naturalism lock horns with each other.
So the key question in the controversy is this: In the history of the cosmos (from its beginning through origin of life, to development of various life-forms including human beings) is there adequate theological, philosophical and scientific reasons for thinking that God exercised primary causality in such a way that science can detect evidence of primary casual activity? Theistic evolutionists answer NO and accepts methodological naturalism while ‘special creationists’ (both young earth and old earth positions) say YES and accept theistic science. Now, the question of which should be a proper method of science is obviously a philosophical question and not a scientific one. Thus at the heart of the controversy is the philosophy of science and how to define science in the first place.
So the philosophy of science should not be methodological naturalism which makes a prior assumption that there can be only material causes for a material world. Instead it should be what is known as theistic science, where the research programs are open to the possibility of an intelligent agent outside and beyond the space-time domain.
When dealing with the theory of macro-evolution we are not just dealing with some straightforward scientific facts and their interpretation. We are dealing with much more. We are dealing with competing worldviews and competing philosophies on how to do science. Two worldviews are in collision: theism and naturalism. Tow philosophies of science are at loggerhead: theistic science and methodological naturalism. In this context, instead of finding holes in the theory (to be sure holes are there and they create serious difficulties for the theory), questions such as “Who determines the rule of science? Should science explain solely by recourse to naturalistic, materialistic purposeless processes?” need to be posed to get the philosophy of science right. Science according to Darwinist establishment by definition excludes everything except the material and the natural. It follows that any talk of purpose, design and intelligence is barred early from the start. Thus a prior assumption in doing science is at the heart of the current evolution-creation debate. Science especially when it explores origins should be open to metaphysical causality. Science cannot remain metaphysically neutral. As C.S. Lewis has noted “there is nothing natural about nature!”

Loopholes in the theory
It is in this broad context of science – theology interaction model and the philosophy of science we should attempt an evaluation of the theory of evolution. Since theory of evolution is an attempt to explain the origin and development of life it should have plausible explanation for every aspect of life. To say the least, the theory cannot address the following basic issues:
Aesthetics: Why a cosmic ‘accident’ should be pleasing to the eyes?
Sexuality: Why there are only two sexes?
Communication: How did speech and languages emerge?
Morality: Why do the ‘naked apes’ struggle with a sense of ‘aughtness’?
Rationality: What is the basis of rationality? Matter?
There are two mechanisms which Darwin proposed for macro - evolution to happen: Natural selection and random mutations. Natural selection is a complex improvement generating force whereas mutations are information generating mechanism. Thus new life forms were improvement upon the previous ones at the same time more complex. How is it that from a relatively simple low information system a high complex information rich system was built? An irreducibly complex system cannot be built by natural selection. Something is reducibly complex if it is composed of several parts and each part is absolutely necessary for the structure to function. Michael Behe gives an interesting example to demonstrate the concept of irreducible complexity. He uses the example of a mousetrap. A mousetrap has five parts that are absolutely necessary for the trap to function. The mouse trap must contain a solid base to attach the four other parts to, a hammer that clamps down on the mouse, a spring which give the hammer the necessary power, a holding bar which holds the now energised hammer in position and a catch to which the holding bar is secured, holding the hammer in tension. Eventually, the jiggling action of the mouse, lured to the catch by a tasty morsel of choice food, causes the holding bar to slip away from the catch, releasing the hammer to spring down on the unsuspecting mouse. There will be a complete break down of functionality if we take away any of these five parts. Now let us consider a factory that produces all these five parts. Those pieces if left to themselves, are never going to spontaneously self-assemble into a mousetrap. The point is that we cannot build a mousetrap by natural selection.
Darwinism is a failed scientific paradigm. As William Dembski a card carrying design theorist has written’ “the problems facing evolution are there and they are glaring: the origin of life, the origin of the genetic code, the origin of multi-cellular life, the origin of sexuality, the gaps in the fossil record, the biological big-bang that occurred in the Cambrian era, the development of irreducibly complex molecular machine are just a few of the more serious difficulties that confront every theory of evolution that posits only purposeless material processes”.
The cutting edge issue in evolution centers around one fundamental issue: Are natural forces information creating? Any text containing information say a book or the DNA code, requires a complex non-repeating arrangement of letters. Can that order be produced by physical law or chance? The answer is no. What chance can produce is randomness while physical law produces simple repetitive order. A page filled randomly with letters of the alphabet is a low probability event. But the sentence: “the quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog” (Note that it has all the letters) has more than low probability. A properly phrased sentence, therefore, exhibits specified complexity, the hallmark of design. The only thing that can produce complex, non-repeating specified order is an intelligent agent. Even a hard-core atheist like Richard Dawkins admits the prima-facie evidence of purpose when he defined Biology as “. . . the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose”.

CONCLUSION
In conclusion I would like to suggest three things. Firstly there is a need to define the terms carefully and use them consistently. We need to recognize the distinction between ‘micro’ and ‘macro’ evolutions. This distinction is important as the term ‘evolution’ can be used loosely. Biblical Christians and scientists should not have any problem in accepting micro-evolution. Micro-evolution merely brings out the capacity of variation in an existing geno-type and do not involve introduction of new genetic information. This potential for variation within a species can be thought of as a pack of cards. Shuffling that pack will give variations of the original hand. But any amount of shuffling will never produce a new pack of cards!
Secondly there is an urgent need to recognise that Darwinism is not a scientific theory. It is much more. It is Atheism with ‘scientific naturalism’ as its sub-structure. So in conversations it is important to get the questions right before we attempt any answers. Limitations of science (eg. It can find only secondary causes) should not be allowed to be taken as limitation on reality. So we ask questions like ‘Does natural selection has the creative power for generating new species?’ or “How does nature does it all alone?” one of the primary reasons why evolution is so controversial is that the theory is the main prop for naturalism. So the debate is not primarily one about how to interpret certain passages in Genesis although it does include that.
Thirdly as Christians we should give careful consideration to the role of theological arguments in dealing with scientific aspects of Darwinism. Instead of entering into theological controversies like age of the earth/universe from the Genesis narrative, it would be more appropriate for us to evaluate the philosophical underpinnings of the scientific methodology itself. It is important to recognize that lurking behind the background of creation-evolution debate or integration issues of science and theology is a conflict between two worldviews – theism and naturalism. What we need is not people who can promote a particular detailed position ending up being defensive, fragmented and fighting each other. Instead we need a platform for rational discussions. If Christians frame our debate that way we can’t be marginalized. This will re-establish our ability to reach out to the scientifically knowledgeable world with the Christian gospel.
The reason the evolution controversy generates such high emotion is not that people care passionately about the size of finch beaks in the Galapagos islands but that they sense a potential challenge to their moral choices. I cannot think of a better conclusion that what G.K. Chesterton said about the issue: “It is absurd for the evolutionist to complain that it is unthinkable for an admittedly unthinkable God to make everything out of nothing, and then pretend that it s more thinkable that nothing should turn itself into everything”!