I finished Why Evolution Is True by Jerry Coyne last night. I had been looking to read a book on evolution lately in order to better understand the mindset of those who argue against creation. Surprisingly, the Coyne book wasn’t bad. It didn’t take on the same arrogant tone that Dawkins, Hitchens, and other anti-theists take on in their writings. It was an informative, yet slightly misguided book.
I did learn a lot though. And that was very beneficial. Coyne never attacked Christianity, but asked generic questions regarding creationism. This is where he went off the tracks, assuming his knowledge of creationism.
Nonetheless, the book was pretty good. Let’s review:
- The issue of “species” is a pretty big deal. Coyne claims that 99% of species that have ever walked this earth are extinct (no sources to back the information). This comes interesting to me as by species, it is meant within a class of animal. Instead of “species” meaning a new animal, it means a different type of finch, fish, monkey, etc. This has always seemed to be a fun issue of interpretation. Anyways, on this issue of Coyne’s assertion he states, ““This, by the way, poses an enormous problem for theories of intelligent design (ID). It doesn’t seem so intelligent to design millions of species that are destined to go extinct, and then replace them with other, similar species, most of which will also vanish. ID supporters have never addressed this difficulty.” Animals die. People die. Death is the result of sin. Just because the answer to the question isn’t what you want, doesn’t mean it hasn’t been addressed.
- Coyne repeatedly appeals to the idea of “Bad Design” but as I just mentioned, Christians do have an explanation for the messed up things of the world – unfortunately, people who operate from the mindset that there is no God refuses to accept that.
- Adaptation happens. I’ll agree with that. It’s been observed. My problem with evolution is the fact that adaptation has been observed – ie. Darwin’s finches – and the argument continues that many little changes within a species add up over time, thus, one form can transform into another. I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree.
- One such example that Coyne provides for adaptation is as follows: There are species of orchids that resemble wasps, bees, and other insects. Sure, I can see that. And this is showing my ignorance on the issue of course, but the argument is that over time, these orchids have developed leaves or whatnot that look like a bee. I mean, look at the picture – it looks like a bee. I just don’t understand what caused the orchid to transform a leaf to look like a bee. Orchids are non-thinking organisms, thus there is no perception of what a bee looks like. So, does nature just somehow take over and give the orchid the ability to grow a leaf that looks JUST like a bee? Random mutations within the DNA sequence allow a leaf to begin to grow and change to the point that it looks like a bee, whenever the orchid cannot observe what bee looks like? Maybe it’s way over my head, but if someone would like to explain how something this complex can happen within an orchid, giving it the ability to grow a leaf that looks like a bee whenever it cannot observe what a bee looks like, then I’d love to have the explanation. As for now, I just think this is a poor argument. Kinda like the Christian side whenever someone argues and just says, “Goddidit, don’t ask anymore questions….” I feel like many people say, “Evolution did it, shut up!”
- Again, my ignorance might be shown greatly here, but another problem I have is of human fossilization. No, I will not go on to say that some of the “transition fossils” presented are not human…whoops. Anyways, Darwin, Coyne, and others use the argument that humans began evolving in Africa. Thus, it is obvious that most fossils would be found in Africa of the earliest descendants. Sure – that’s fine. I mean, according to the Bible, that area is where a lot of fossils should be found, too, as fossilization occurs whenever organisms find themselves quickly covered by water and sediments…I seem to remember this flood story…nonetheless – a quick look at human fossil records shows that some of the earliest “human fossils” were not discovered in Africa, but instead scattered around Asia, Europe, AND Africa. I don’t care where they find them. I just thought it interesting that Coyne really hit on the fact that man evolved in Africa, thus fossils should be found only there, and then whenever man because a thinking creature capable of movement, he moved across the world…yet some of the oldest dated fossils by evolutionists are found in Germany, China, Pakistan, and Italy. Oh well.
Anyways, I enjoyed the book. I obviously don’t know everything that evolutionists believe, nor will I ever (as I have heard different contradicting ideas from different evolutionists…) I just wanted to take a step toward understanding the worldview from which they work.
There are many I have talked to who are simply angry. They don’t want to believe in a God. They don’t want to deal with that, so it’s a sense of rebellion. I try to avoid these types of people.
But others are simply unable to come to the conclusion that a God exists. They see evolution as fact because it makes sense. They see Christianity (and any religion) as moot because it seems preposterous and impossible. They reject it because it is not logical – not because they’re angry babies. I like these people, because they’re nice.
I read this book to understand those people. I read this book to be able to at least talk to them a little.
One last tidbit, just for fun. Within the book, Coyne says “probably,” “maybe,” “possibly,” etc. numerous times when speaking of how things evolved, why they evolved, and other issues. Sure, I don’t expect evolutionists to have all the answers. I mean, that’s something you hear a lot from them. ”No, we haven’t found transitional fossils, but we will someday and that will answer all the questions…” What you hear is faith. I just wanted to point that one out. So, don’t bash faith. It happens to everyone.
Now, back to reading things I want to read for fun….not that I didn’t enjoy the book. It had some interesting tidbits…just interpreted the evidence in a much different way.
No comments:
Post a Comment