Evolution: a conceptual paradigm

Now that we have spent time discussing the role that a literary text like Genesis plays within our worldview, we can deal directly with the question of biological evolution. I think this is an extremely important topic and one that deserves careful discussion. This is so for several reasons. First, it offers us a rare opportunity to see the life that has existed on our planet from a 'bird's eye view.' That is, we are able to see how life on our planet lives, adapts, and sometimes goes extinct. This is both invaluable and insightful. Secondly, one cannot help but see this larger picture and be moved by it. It is elegant.

Having reflected on this for quite some time, I am more and more convinced that what often hinders us from understanding this concept is that we are woefully ignorant of the 'facts' that it is attempting to explain. Let me clarify. We often presuppose (especially someone from a religious persuasion) that the theory of evolution is an attempt to offer an explanation of life apart from reference to a creator. I sincerely believe that this is not the case. In fact when we are considering a notion like evolution we are not even asking the question of whether or not there is a creator. If there is, or is not a creator, is not what we are trying to address. Rather, we are trying to explain certain data that we find again and again when we investigate living things. From a religious persuasion we may say that we are attempting to address the means by which a creator forms new beings rather than the fact of whether or not he does. The question of how life itself arose is actually a question of something called abiogenesis.

The issue of how to make sense of certain data is precisely what a theory is. Within academic circles we say that a theory is a 'conceptual paradigm.' In other words, within any area of study we are presented with certain brute facts. This is the case in literature, sociology, biblical studies - virtually anything that we are attempting to understand. That data simply is. Perhaps a statement in Dickens, repeated Phrases in Paul's letters, key words in John's gospel. What then happens is that we come along and attempt to interpret that data that is there. We try to make sense of it, try to explain why it is there. We even do this in everyday life: why did a particular person say this or that, are they angry with me? Did I upset them somehow? Putting that data of their anger within the context of their words may help me make sense of it.

With anything in life, some theories are better than others. What makes a theory 'good'? Two things. First, a good theory should make the most sense of the data in a concise and simple way. The more simple the explanation is that best takes account of all the data the better it is. This is basically Ockham's razor. Namely, that the simplest explanation is usually the correct one. Secondly, a good theory is one that also has predictive power. This simply means that if a theory is correct we should expect to find such and such. If we actually do, then we know we are on to something.

Now does this mean that our conception will be perfect? No, of course not. There will always be a troubling passage in Dicken's here or there or even an anomaly that forces us to revise our conclusions. But as long as the vast amount of data is simply explained and predicted we know that we are on to something; that particular detail, however, may need revising or perfecting.

So to conclude, what then are the data that biologist and natural scientist are confronted with within the natural world? I'll make a short list and then show in my next posting how it is that biological evolution most simply explains these facts. A paradigm that attempts to argue that a creator individually makes each living thing one by one (again, by that means) simply compounds explanations and thus makes it needlessly complicated. In other words, it is way more complicated than it needs to be. So again, what are these facts/data? As follows:

Geographic distribution. All living beings are curiously distributed across the planet. Certain types of animals are indigenous only in certain locations. Marsupials within Australia. Lemurs only within Madagascar. Mammals within continental land masses. Secondly, animals near continents are typically closely related to animals on continental islands but no where else. Thirdly, on oceanic islands we find the curious fact that there is no native mammals, reptiles, amphibians or fresh water fish. Ever. Instead we find flowering trees, and a huge diversity of birds and an occasional smaller reptile like an Iguana or turtle. Why the stranged distribution? Why is there not one mammal on any oceanic island? Fourthly, when we find fossils, typically the current living species in an area is closely related to an animal near the same geographic place - but no where else.

Animal classification. Why are we able to classify animals into groups, subgroups, and smaller subgroups. Why are there 'familes' of animals like reptiles, amphibians, fish, mammals. Canines, cats, etc. And yet the animals within these familes often look very different from each other. So much so that we wouldn't even expect them to be related. How do we explain that a close relative of a dog is a seal, for example? Or that an animal like a dolphin or whale lives in the sea and yet has to hold its breath? That a whale swims in the same way that a dog runs. Weird.

Morphology. Why ado we find the same general layout within so many different species? For example something called homologuous structures falls within this category. The bones in the hand of a human is exactly the same as that of a bat, whale, dog, bird, etc. Why the same number of bones in the hand? Why does a dolphin have an ulna and a radius (typically used to turn your hand) when it has fins and doesn't need them? Why the exact same bones even? Embryology also falls within this category. Why do animals when they are maturing within their parent egg or womb develop such similar traits only to not use them? A tail or gill folds in a human fetus for example.

Rudimentary organs. All living things possess structures that they do not use. For example a Baleen whale has a pelvis (typically used for walking) that is no longer attached to its spine and simply embedded within tissue. It literally serves no purpose in its present anatomy. Whales and horses have teeth while newborn that never push through the gums and eventually fade so much so that in adults they can no longer be found. Boa constrictors have rudiments of a pelvis and hind legs while other snakes do not. Penguins and rheas are one example of birds that cannot fly.

This list can go on and on but I think this is a safer place to start.