Theodosius Dobzhansky, a well-known biologist, has made the claim that nothing in Biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. This statement has become well known in biological circles, is often quoted, and has the acceptance of most biologists. But we do well to consider why a biologist would make such an all-encompassing claim.

We know that when we do science, we always begin at some starting point. We never come with a blank mind, or a completely objective approach. We cannot do science in a vacuum. When a secular evolutionist does his science in the field of Biology, he makes a basic assumption that we must not invoke any supernatural power to account for the origin of living things. It is an assumption, of course, but that is not always understood. If that assumption has been made, there are certain consequences that follow.

If the origin of all living things is to be explained without the help of a supernatural being (which is impossible, of course), it is argued that they must have come into being according to the laws of nature which we observe today. On the basis of what we can observe today evolutionists try to explain every aspect of the living world, whether this be the original coming into being of organisms or their continued progress through history.

But when overarching questions are being asked about the meaning of life, and about what holds it all together, people are not easily led to believe that everything just happens. There has to be something that accounts for the order which we all observe. And it is here that the concept of evolution plays a great role.

Whether secular biologists deal with classification, hered­ity, structure, function, development, or any other aspect of living things, they invoke the concept of evolution as the in­tegrating principle. This is what, to them, holds all aspects of living things together.

I can understand why they do this, not because I agree with them, but because I see no way they could construct another principle which would give them the security they are look­ing for.

Problems of the Evolution Theory⤒🔗

That there are a number of problems with the theory of evolution is a well-known fact. This in itself, of course, does not mean that the theory could not be correct. Many theories have flaws which are slowly worked out, so that in the end they turn out to be valid. But the theory of evolution has some basic problems which, it seems to me, put that theory beyond repair.

In that regard I am thinking of Stephen Gould, for exam­ple, a leading contemporary evolutionist, who holds that the process of evolution has not progressed gradually through many small accumulated steps, as believed by gradualists, but has come in rather abrupt jumps between long periods of constancy. This is what the data of the fossil record tell him. And when we look at what systematists say about that area, we see that there are indeed systematic gaps in the fossil record. That means that the transition forms, which you would expect to find between major groups of animals, are not to be found. And no amount of maneuvering of the data of Genetics is going to change that. One taxonomist, Blackwelder, who is also an evolutionist, says that if you want to construct a phylogenetic tree (one that shows the evolutionary history of the development of a large group of animals), you have to know the evolution of each individual species to be included in that tree. The unfortunate thing, he says, is that we do not know the evolution of even one species.

I am also thinking of the theory of recapitulation which for many years has been claimed as one of the major sup­ports for the theory of evolution. The recapitulation theory holds that when you look at the embryonic development of an individual organism, such as a cat or chicken, that you can see the development of the major groups of animals repeated from the time they originated way back in the history of the evolution of the animals, from the simplest to the most complex. Although today most biologists still pay lip-ser­vice to this idea, there is now the clear recognition of the impossibility to apply this theory to anything more than the broadest outlines of resemblance. This, of course, should not surprise us, since we should expect extensive resem­blances in the development of backboned animals which structurally and functionally are so similar.

Comparative anatomy, another field which has been claimed as a strong support for the theory of evolution, has similar problems, seeing parallels which are real, but which are being misinterpreted, and which are not being recognized for what they really are. The evolution of the horse is usually pictured as one of the best documented instances of evolu­tionary development, going from Hyracotherium, a dog-like animal, through various stages, to the modern day horse, Equus. Although many textbooks cite such trends as gradual increase in body size, gradual change in foot mechanism, and gradual increase in tooth crown height, some evolutionist authors, such as G. G. Simpson, point out the difficulties with this story and the lack of evidence for these trends. One author indicates that for all practical purposes the probability of the horse evolving is zero. Yet he believes that the horse did evolve, because, he says, after all, the horse is here.

The Needed Christian Perspective←⤒🔗

We can understand to some extent why evolutionists cling to the theory of evolution in their attempt to keep some resemblance of integrity in their science, and to keep supernatural powers and events out of the picture. But that a number of Christians in science also want to jump on that band wagon is rather puzzling. On the one hand, I can see why they want to be accepted by the scientific community in which they do their work. But on the other hand, I wonder why they do not ask more questions which deal with basic assumptions, and bring their world-and-life view to bear directly and incisively on these matters. Why not build on the basic confession that Jehovah is God, that His Word is our guide for life, and that it gives direction for how we ap­proach our science? Does that not make a difference in our scientific activities? One fellow Christian, also a scientist, told me that he, feels sorry for biologists, because, he said, they have nothing to tie things together in Biology, whereas evolutionists have their theory of evolution. This, of course, I could not accept.

So what do we, as Bible-believing Christians, do when we face the claim that nothing makes sense in Biology except in the light of evolution? As a biologist, I regularly work with these matters dealing with living things, and naturally have to come to grips with that question and deal with it daily in a practical way.

My first reaction is that I see no validity in Dobzhansky's claim at all. Obviously, lots of things do make sense outside the concept of evolution. Even secular humanists, when they write about living things within the framework of the evolu­tionary theory, indicate that there is something which ties things together. You will, for example, see in their writings references to the fact that they recognize a common plan in the structure, function, or process of embryonic development of groups of animals. And this recognition is factual. You can demonstrate that there are those similarities which in­dicate that common plan. They are there for anyone to see. But when we come to interpreting these facts, our basic perspective and commitment will determine how much sense they make, and what significance they have.

In my courses I emphasize that the common plan in the world of living things is there because of the hand of the Creator. He made them according to a basic design, a com­mon plan, which is appropriate for all these different organisms. This common plan has many variations, some of which are expected and some of which are rather surpris­ing. And when we look at the structure, function, and em­bryonic development of many organisms, we recognize that common plan, and know this to be a confirmation of what we already know from God's Word, namely that He is the Creator, that He called them into being at the beginning of time, and sustains them continuously. This, of course, does not prove the existence of God, or that He created. But it does confirm the faith knowledge which we already have. It goes without saying that we cannot and do not have to prove that God created. You can not prove it to someone who does not want to believe.

Coming from the perspective which we as Christians have, we can make much sense of all the biologic data which we accumulate. In more than two decades of college Biology teaching I have not yet encountered data which could be understood only in the light of evolution. In fact, I find it most satisfying and rewarding to see that everything in Biology does make sense in the light of the knowledge that God created all living things according to a basic plan, with numerous variations, which He determined is good for His creatures. The plethora of different species daily declare the glory of God.

And in our scientific work we, too, must bring praise to our Maker. We may not go along with the false pretext that nothing would make sense if not seen in the light of evolu­tionary theory. When we are firmly anchored in the Word of God, we know that that Word gives us the right perspec­tive. And therefore everything does make good sense in Biology when seen in the light of God's creative, supernatural acts and His daily upholding power. Soli deo gloria.