A. Simple Definition:

Looking at evolution, the simplest and unanimous definition of the process is "change over time." That's it. This means that any change in any environment or being is considered evolution. Take for instance the Earth. In modern science, the Earth is said to be approximately 4.5 billion years old (1) due to potassium argon dating, though there are certain groups who would disagree. Obviously the Earth is much different now than it was in the beginning. Because of this, we can say that Earth has evolved. So, all people can agree that evolution, in at least some sense, is fact.

B. Common Definition:

We all have genes, about 25,000 according to recent research (3), and it's clear that each of these genes represents a certain trait. Now, let's say I have no brothers or sisters and never have children. Let's even say I am the last male in my family. This means that when I die I will not leave my genes behind and they will become absent from the gene pool. This obviously happens with millions of people every year. Now genes vary from generation to generation as time passes (4). This is change, or evolution. Because appearances vary from person to person, the physical builds and appearances of future populations depend on who is reproducing. Therefore, the physical builds and appearances of beings also changes over time depending on the population.

Here is a perfect example: millennia ago, people did not have the technology to travel and therefore were isolated on separate continents. People today migrate from all locations on the Earth and the result is a new people of mixed races, cultures, and backgrounds. We now display physical features that were not previously observed thousands of years ago. This example and the one above are examples of microevolution, which is simply change within a species through time. Macroevolution, on the other hand, refers to change from one species into a new species through time. This type of evolution is presently the most controversial and debated. All people, creationists and evolutionists, accept microevolution because it can be observed today, for even insects' adaptation to pesticides is a form of microevolution. Though there are many points of view just within this topic, let's disregard the specifics for now and simply recognize that certain forms of evolution (change over time) do take place. These small changes, and all changes, resort from the combination of our allele frequencies during reproduction through countless generations.

To briefly define allele frequencies, they basically display the biological and physical traits present in any population. If an entire population has blond hair and blue eyes, the allele frequency for blond hair and blue eyes in that population would be 100%. As humans and all other life reproduce, these frequencies begin to vary from population to population in time. Continuing with the example above, the allele frequencies for our biological traits, but especially our physical traits, are much different today than they were thousands of years ago, for many races have intermarried. It becomes increasingly difficult to tell if a person's earlier ancestors resided in Asia, or Africa, or anywhere else. By now you can understand that microevolution is a part of our universe, but the universe itself brings up another question of origin.

C. Types of Evolution:

Atheistic Evolution

Atheistic evolution is basically the belief in evolution as the process which created life on its own without any supernatural guidance from God or other sources. As God is excluded in atheistic evolution, there is much debate on how life came into existence, as the great majority of scientists believe there was a beginning to the universe. Some propose that the universe came into existence from nothing, caused by nothing. Others have created theories involving multiple universes that caused our universe, yet there has been no evidence of any universe but ours. The basic point in atheistic evolution is that everything in the universe must be explained rationally by the process of methodological naturalism and without referring to supernatural powers such as God. In short, there are no miracles. This type of evolution was established more recently in the twentieth century, especially by present day scientists such as Richard Dawkins, yet original evolution, as espoused by Charles Darwin, was actually theistic evolution.

Recently evolutionists have secularized much of their beliefs, which has caused the most recent debates on whether prayer should be allowed in schools and whether intelligent design should be taught alongside evolution. Atheistic evolution is also thought of as a philosophy as well, one which perpetuates the idea of human perfectibility, as addressed by Benjamin Franklin in his Thirteen Virtues, and puts human autonomy above religious humility. Many atheists, like Ludwig Feuerbach, the father of Atheism, claim that God is the perfect idea of a human; therefore, humans are imagining the perfect versions of themselves, yet other atheistic evolutionists do not set out to attack religion, but only claim that they have not witnessed the evidence for God, like David Hume stated, and therefore can have no faith in something unseen by the human eye. For an argument for atheistic evolution, please return to the atheism section and read the defense.

Theistic Evolution

The term theistic evolutionist refers to a person who believes both in God and in evolution. Furthermore, theistic evolution is the belief that God used and currently uses the process of evolution to govern the creation of the universe and life, as he is said to have used and be using the processes of nature to govern the present-day universe. Theistic evolutionists point out that the nature of God is extremely naturalistic, in that throughout the Bible he uses nature to handle most every occasion that requires His action, from the plagues on Pharaoh's land and people to the flood of Noah's time and to the parting of the Red Sea by strong winds. They also state that evolution does not rule out God, since evolution is merely a process acting on creation and not creating anything itself. Theistic evolutionists like Charles Darwin believe that modern discoveries in paleoanthropology suggest an evolutionary trend in nature, yet that the process is in need of guidance, since randomness in nature has been proven, as they see it, to lead to complete chaos and disorder. Theistic evolutionists range from Protestants to Catholics and Jews, as well, but the term applies to anyone, as I said above, who believes in both God and evolution as a process of God.

As an extra note, many fields of science were originally rejected by early Christians. For example, when heliocentrism, the view that the sun is at the center of the universe and/or solar system, was first introduced to the world by Copernicus, Keplar, and Galileo between the 1500s and early 1600s, it was a devastation to theology and the way in which theologians of all kinds interpreted the Bible. Before that time, theologians believed that the Earth was at the center of the universe. Their understanding of this was seemingly supported by the Bible, yet that interpretation was disproved by modern science. Today we know that having the Earth not at the center of the universe is no threat to the Bible, and many theistic evolutionists point out that science is contributing to our interpretations of the Bible, as science and nature are creations of God in themselves. Theistic evolutionists note that people must be aware of the times, the secularization of science, and understand that science and God have always been linked until recently in the twentieth century. Science is therefore no threat to God, but a way in which people can grow closer together through the observation of his creations and their inner-workings. While this is a short analysis of theistic evolution, such a large and modern movement does require further investigation which can be examined in the "theistic evolution" step.
 

C. The Big Bang:

Now that we have a general idea of the types of evolution, let's do a quick review of the process in question. The first step in this matter deals with cosmological concept of the Big Bang, a popular and widely accepted theory which seeks to provide a valid hypothesis for the universe's beginning and current expansion.

For the sake of understanding the theory, let's take the position that the universe is and has been expanding, or becoming larger, as modern scientists suggest it is. If expansion is occurring, it's obvious that the further we go back in time, the smaller the universe becomes. Now go back billions of years until the universe is so small that it cannot be observed with today's most powerful microscopes. This has been purported to be the point of origin. At this state in time, the universe rapidly began to expand out from a big bang which was either caused, as some believe by God or another force, or uncaused, another controversial theory. Temperatures were unthinkably high and therefore matter could not exist until later. When temperatures cooled enough, molecules began binding together and the first matter was formed. Matter collided into other matter which constituted the formation of planets and stars (5). Now, some 10 billion years later, the Earth was formed.

It must be understood that at the point of origin, this microscopic universe must have had everything it needed to become our present universe before it began expanding. Therefore, all the molecules and even the laws of physics had to be present before the expansion. As for the beginning of the laws of physics and nature, that is also an issue of whether they were intelligently designed or not and another question of origin, and the fact that if the rate of the expansion had different in any one part of 1.0x10(120), which means fractions of fractions of a percent, then life would not exist in our universe, for it would have expanded and instantly exploded into nothingness (5).

Big Bang Illustrations
Click Pictures for Full-Size Images
and borrowed source

Now, in this Big Bang scenario, there are only water and gases during the times of the early Earth. Soon land formed when the temperature was cool enough, but I want to emphasize that life first existed (according to the modern scientists' view) about 3.5-3.8 billion years ago (6). Interestingly enough, this was exactly the time at which life could possibly exist. To clarify, life formed immediately after conditions were ideal for life (5). This means the traditional theory that amino acids lived amongst each other for billions of years until finally combining in the perfect order from billions of possibilities to create life from non-life has been proven to be incorrect. As soon as amino acids were present, they correctly combined immediately to produce life. It is said if amino acids were given the 14 billion years the universe has existed, the chance of them combining together in the correct way is so small that it is negligible (5), as acids do not have minds of there own. In fact, these amino acids tend to bond to other acids which do not produce life. In any case, life has now formed about 3.8 billion years ago, which brings us to our next step in the theory of evolution: the types of life.


D. Life on Earth:

Any source will tell you that sea life was present first, then land life. By the time we reach the Cambrian period 542 million years ago, nearly all life as we know it explodes into existence, according to evolutionists' research, which contradicts the theory of gradual evolution put forth by Charles Darwin. Now evolutionary periods are classified within catastrophism, which indicates that there are periods of time of high evolutionary activity or other periods where they is little or no activity, instead of gradualism. Hence, this aforementioned period is called the Cambrian Explosion. The amount of life that comes forth in a relatively short amount of time is astounding. "Scientists have also long been puzzled by its abruptness, and the apparent lack of obvious predecessors to the Cambrian faunas,"(7). This simply adds to the fact that evolution was not a gradual process at first.

At this stage, there are different views points that arise. Some evolutionists believe that natural selection alone guided evolution to produce life so quickly. Others, while understanding natural selection's role, doubt its capabilities and purpose that God was the driving force behind evolution's rapidity (theistic evolution). Irrespective of your stance, let's begin digging closer to one vision of our origin.


E. Primates:

I begin with primates for I do not wish to go in depth on this site about how single-celled organisms might have evolved into multicellular organisms and so on. And though discussing these matters as well as the process of evolution which is said to have led to primates are also central issues, I want to stick as closely to our prospective origin as possible. Please visit my previous biological Anthropology teacher's website if you want further information on the earlier proposed processes of evolution that he explains very specifically, as he is an expert who has studied and done fieldwork abroad for over thirty years, observing primates and also studying the many levels of genetics. Know, as I said before, that the theory of life from non-life, called abiogenesis or spontaneous generation, to be more specific, is one of the most controversial evolution issues to this day. This process has been debated and creationists rejected it for some time, and some still do, on the grounds of the second law of thermodynamics which deals mostly in this case with entropy, which states that in an isolated system the physical processes, like temperature and chemical potential, tend to even out with time. This consequence, disorder, is displayed most classically when ice inside a glass of water begins to melt as it reaches room temperature. Now you see how the physical processes even out with time. This entropy would mean that the molecules could not combine correctly to form life during the early Earth; however, it is well known that the Earth is an open system that receives energy from the sun. This energy constitutes work for the Earth's environment and prevents such disorder, or entropy. But let's get back to primates.

According to the theory of evolution, 60 million years ago we find the appearance of ape families. And after about 55 million years we run into some strange yet mysterious creatures. These are called the australopithecines. Prior to these creatures, we see that the apes' and monkeys' foramen magnums (the holes in the bottom of the crania which connect to the spinal chords) were further back. Because they were quadrupeds (they walked on all fours), their heads were not balanced evenly on their necks like ours are; therefore, they had to walk on all fours for their necks and heads to be in the most comfortable positions. Due to this physical difference, their foramen magnums were located in a different place than ours are. As we move back to the australopithecines, we find that they (the Australopithecus afarensis, africanus and others) have foramen magnums which are closer to ours, yet still further back like the apes'. Evolution says this is the adjustment from quadrupedalism to bipedalism (walking on two legs). Scientists base this conclusion on the large amount of fossils that have been discovered in the last centuries and also recently. As far as the link between the apes and these creatures is concerned, there have been recent discoveries which are leading further and further back to the missing link that is assumed will be discovered with time as many other fossils have been that are said to have led to Homo sapiens. Lucy is said to be one of the more credible missing links. To quickly inform you, this evolution from apes to humans is said to have been sparked by the new use of tools. When Homo habilis began using simple tools, natural selection is said to have favored those who were more intelligent and creative enough to invent new tools. This technology grew more and more as tools became more complicated and cranial capacity increased. Of course there is still speculation as to what caused the suspected evolution from apes to humans.

Through the ages we move to the genus Homo (Homo habilis, rudolfensis, erectus, ergaster and others) which looks to be more human. The fossils are said to demonstrate that these creatures, as well as the australopithecines and Neanderthals, had more ape-like heads and were virtually identical to Homo sapiens below the neckline (anatomically modern). Whether one believes that man evolved from ape or not, these various species demand more careful investigation.

Primate Crania
Click Pictures for Full-Size Images
and borrowed source

Australopithecus africanus	Australopithecus afarensis	Australopithecus aethiopicus	Australopithecus anamensis	Australopithecus robustus	Paranthropus boisei
Homo ergaster	Homo habilis	Homo erectus	Homo neanderthalensis	Cro-Magnon	Homo sapien

F. Our Species:

During the time of emerging primates, technology progresses from simple hand axes to complex tools, to cave paintings with the Cro-Magnon and even to the burying of dead with the Neanderthals (8). Evidence has been accumulating that scientists say demonstrates how all primates originated in Africa while Homo erectus was the first hominid intelligent enough to move out of Africa and into Europe and Asia (9). Homo sapiens are said to have evolved from Homo erectus, yet there has been speculation since there have been well over two thousand fossils that are found during the time the homo sapiens had already been living for years and years. Since this is not technically supposed to happen in evolution, as one species is supposed to replace another, evolution in general is being questioned, yet scientists still claim that the majority of evidence shows that Homo sapiens came from Homo erectus'. There are even some Homo erectus' that were dated at 200 years ago. That means that around the time America was gaining independence, there were still Homo erectus' walking around in the unexplored Java.

Getting back to Homo sapiens, it is suspected that they would have originated in Africa and moved out into all parts of the world, as did Homo erectus. Later, there is evidence of the beginning of agriculture about 10,000 years ago (10). Since this time, cultural evolution has grown incredibly and continues to do so. Our brains are said to have become so advanced that there is not much need for physical evolution any longer. In other words, our tools (technology) are evolving more rapidly than anything else. Though there are many more details on the theory of human evolution, let's close the enormous vault and move on. With the links provided and with some additional research, you should be well on your way to understanding the theory of evolution and how to pick it apart with elements of paleoanthropology, radiometric dating, geology, physics, and various other fields of science. Please follow the links for my suggested books if you are interested in this field; they have helped me understand a great deal about the matter, and a couple Anthropology courses wouldn't hurt either.

H. Conclusion:

Looking through the eyes of a theist, evolution has always been labeled as a theory, yet this does not mean the evidence is unreliable. It is called a theory because it cannot be thoroughly tested and we cannot travel through time to observe its occurrence. But I encourage you research this subject with an open mind and disregard any bias' you may have. Evolution may very well be a fabrication of science, as many scientists are clearly biased and are merely searching for a way rationalize the universe and take God out of the picture. Evolution has even combined with atheism to become a religion, for there are dedicated followers who preach to others their message, an evolution of philosophy. However, there are also those who accept evolution as a process of God, like physics or biology which also govern our universe so that God is not single-handedly causing every chemical reaction. Evolution does demand further investigation. Even Pope John Paul II had thoughts on the subject: "New findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than a hypothesis." If evolution is true and it is a process perhaps developed by God, denying it may cause many people to denounce God. It would at least not contribute anything to nonbelievers. And of course, if evolution is true, denying it will only needlessly separate God and science more, as science was created by God, according to the theist. Evolution could have very well been God's process all along and modern science is just now uncovering it by seeking the truth throughout nature. Because nature is God's creation, it might possibly help us understand more about Him. All of this is speculation. In the end, the choice is wholly yours to make. Research with an open mind to discover the answer. Humans need not preach falsities and divide themselves by their prejudices. Consider all view points as I have trying to understand this extremely complex subject.

Looking through the eyes of an atheist, evolution could be fact or a poor misinterpretation of the fossil record. Either way, it does not disprove the existence of God, yet it also does not prove His existence. Considering the philosophy of David Hume, the renowned skeptic and agnostic, though some are mistaken in calling him an atheist, how we anyone be certain that God does or does not exist until death is come upon? Therefore, the question is whether to have faith. There remains the questions of why does evolution take place, does anything guide it, and of course, how did it and the universe first begin? Questioning the existence of God is what most people all over the world, and 91% of Americans, do throughout their lives. Knowing that evolution does not disprove God, as 52% of the 91% are theistic evolutionists, it would be worth it to contemplate whether the process of evolution is guided by God. If it were, it could certainly be directed to produce specific results like humans (the image of God). This may not be the case, but the possibility is worth taking a look at. Let's consider all views openly. After all, remember that eternal life may truly be at stake, but let that not be a personal threat as people usually perceive it to be, but an actual concern, for David Hume is right; how can we actually be certain that God does or does not exist?

...............................................................................................................................................................................

SCIENCE AND RELIGION REUNITE

| Atheism | Evolution | Theistic Evolution | Creationism | Christianity |

| Judaism | Islam | Buddhism | Hinduism | Coexist | References |

| About | Contact | Privacy |