Classic Darwinian evolution postulates that thousands of "micro-changes" occur over time, and "natural selection" allows the "survival of the fittest". However, the evidence doesn't seem to show much in the way of intermediary steps... Folks call that "gaps in the fossil record". Some folks energetically wave this flag as evidence that there is no such thing as ANY kind of evolution. However, both stances seem to me to be utter blather... We can easily see that life on this planet has had gradual changes over time. Because Darwin's theory has a lot of holes in it, doesn't erase millions of years of physical evidence that changes have been occurring!

Species do not magically transform into other species, though. Breeders will tell you that, in a heartbeat. No matter how weird it looks, a Chihuahua is still a dog. Once a species appears, it apparently stubbornly remains what it is. For example, bacteria have been around for billions of years. They can replicate every twenty minutes; and yet, with a billion years worth of chances to evolve, bacteria are still bacteria. Bees preserved in amber from forty million years ago are basically identical with living bees. Homo-sapiens appeared quite suddenly on the scene, fully equipped with attributes no ape even begins to possess. Trust me, no matter how much you tutor a chimpanzee, it will never be able to discuss the Super Bowl with you...

I read recently about the late Richard Goldschmidt, a leading geneticist who taught at Berkeley, spent years observing the mutations of fruit flies and concluded that biologists had to give up Darwin's idea that an accumulation of "micro" changes creates an entirely new species. If you have a "thousand-point" mutation in a fruit fly, which, by the way, is a statistical impossibility, it is still a fruit fly. Caught a lot of flak for pointing this out, but Stephen Jay Gould now claims that he was on the right track after all in asserting that scientists were getting nowhere with the notion that micro changes add up to major evolutionary jumps.

The biological systems that comprise our bodies work in harmony and balance, and any tiny shift in that balance could collapse the entire structure. This kills the organism. Most mutations are NOT favorable, we've known this for years. Yet, many cling to the idea of micro-changes, causing macro evolutionary jumps. Why? Is it so unlikely that there could be a PLAN? A guiding hand, as it were?

Because that’s basically where I’m coming from. Planned evolution, changes, yes, but with the Creator firmly behind such changes, not "random" chance.

If it is all random, then someone please explain to me where DNA came from? A strand of DNA contains more organized information than the Library of Congress. It is stretching probability to assert that the first DNA simply pulled itself together by accident. Yet, that is the crux, the focal point of classic Darwinian evolution! Random chance creating positive mutations. That would therefor require that "probability" be a factor!

Or even more basic - can you even imagine, in the "primordial soup", the shift from mere chemicals to cells with individual cell walls? It would require a miracle. And I for one, suppose that's exactly what happened, directed and purposefully.

Yet, we can speak of "evolution" i.e. the idea of continuity between past and present species, certainly, it is a valid concept. Years ago, back in 1986, Pope John Paul II wrote "the theory of natural evolution, understood in a sense that does not exclude divine causality, is not in principle opposed to the truth about the creation of the visible world, as presented in the Book of Genesis . . . The doctrine of faith, however, invariably affirms that man's spiritual soul is created directly by God . . . it is possible that the human body, following the order impressed by the Creator on the energies of life, could have been gradually prepared in the forms of antecedent living beings."

In other words, no matter what their biological antecedents, people are beings profoundly different from the rest of the animal kingdom. We are people made in the image of God. And God intended from all eternity that humans exist in a particular form. These truths are taught in Genesis. But the pope is warning us that the author did not in addition mean to give scientific information about how God's creation of humans unfolded whether it was done in a flash or over many eons.

In the year 410 a.d. Augustine came up with what I can only call an idea of a "programmer" God. Now, bear with me, college Philosophy 101 was a long time ago! In his second commentary on Genesis, he speculated that God had planted "rational seeds" in nature which eventually fructified into plants and animals. This would be evolution in the strict meaning of the word, an unfolding of what is already there. Gradual change, yet directed and purposeful. Like a "program" that is set to perform certain tasks at certain pre-defined moments. (I wonder if God programs in C++ or Java?)

Those that take God out of science, are wrong, and most any Christian you talk to will agree. But those that take science out, in favor of what they call Christianity, are throwing out the baby with the bath-water...

I've had folks get in my face and tell me God is "testing" our faith, by making "things look old"... or other absurdities, such as the speed of light slowing down... and that's why stars "seem" to be millions of years old, but supposedly aren't ... I'm sorry, but Loki was the "trickster god" of mythology, not my God!  Some can't handle the truth of science, it makes them feel small, and some can't handle the Truth of God... perhaps that makes them feel small too...

God is capable of far more than we can possible imagine, and far more than a lot of folks apparently give Him credit for... we don't understand the "how", but that doesn't mean we need to stop looking. Because the more we learn about the universe and the complexity of living things, the closer we come to the mysteries of our Faith.

In His Love,

Lisa Alekna
05/10/1999