On his blog Dangerous Idea, Victor Reppert linked to an interesting piece by Cornelius Hunter, where he discusses some problems with evolutionist arguments against special creation. While polemical in style, Hunter raises an interesting defense against one Evolutionist argument. Consider the original argument from Jerry Coyne:

I have little to add to what P.Z. said except to note that the argument from imperfection — i.e., organisms show imperfections of “design” that constitute evidence for evolution — is not a theological argument, but a scientific one.  The reason why the recurrent laryngeal nerve, for example, makes a big detour around the aorta before attaching to the larynx is perfectly understandable by evolution (the nerve and artery used to line up, but the artery evolved backwards, constraining the nerve to move with it), but makes no sense under the idea of special creation — unless, that is, you believe that the creator designed things to make them look as if they evolved.  No form of creationism/intelligent design can explain these imperfections, but they all, as Dobzhansky said, “make sense in the light of evolution.”

The argument from imperfection is a common evolutionary argument, for good reason: it’s compelling. Why would an all-powerful god create something so… inelegant? Clearly, if he does exist, he’s sleeping at the wheel and has no role to play in evolution. If he has no role to play in evolution, the argument is scientific, or at least secular.

God’s in the Details

Hunter’s response to this is what’s interesting: you can’t argue that you’re not making a theological argument while simultaneously speculating about what God is (that he’s perfect/all-powerful) or what he can or will do (make things elegant and pretty). Evolutionists who make this argument need to presuppose a picture of God that fits their needs: he does things in a specific way that’s incongruous with evolution simpliciter.

Hunter is right to point out this problem: if evolutionists argue that God has no part in evolution (or that you can’t explain evolutionary processes with God), they need to bring God into it. It’s at best hypocritical and at worst circular. But, while the argument from imperfection isn’t a very good one, it’s not the only one, and there are compelling reasons to think evolution isn’t just some wild, kooky, and misguided theory.

Evolution: Not Just a Theory

Wide-throated Yellow Monkey-flower Mimulus brevipes (From Wikipedia)

One of the strongest indicators of evolution is that it has been observed, in the form of speciation: it’s a relatively common occurrence in several types of plants and insects. The TalkOrigins Archive has a few articles containing several examples of them (e.g. here and here), but one such example is of the yellow monkey flower:

At reasonably low concentrations, copper is toxic to many plant species. Several plants have been seen to develop a tolerance to this metal (Macnair 1981). Macnair and Christie (1983) used this to examine the genetic basis of a postmating isolating mechanism in yellow monkey flower. When they crossed plants from the copper tolerant “Copperopolis” population with plants from the nontolerant “Cerig” population, they found that many of the hybrids were inviable. During early growth, just after the four leaf stage, the leaves of many of the hybrids turned yellow and became necrotic. Death followed this. This was seen only in hybrids between the two populations. Through mapping studies, the authors were able to show that the copper tolerance gene and the gene responsible for hybrid inviability were either the same gene or were very tightly linked. These results suggest that reproductive isolation may require changes in only a small number of genes.

There are other examples: maize, ferns, fruit flies, catfish, and on and on.

Two Sides of the Same Coin

It’s important to realize it’s highly unlikely that Evolution and Special Creation are mutually incompatible: presupposing a specific modus operandi of God talks past the Special Creationists, and ignoring observable phenomena provides no recourse for rectifying the arguments of Evolutionists. It’s not for scientists to explain the metaphysics behind phenomena, but merely to observe and report: provide data and accounts to explain the data in an observable way. Likewise, it’s not up for theologians and philosophers to reject scientifically observed phenomena outright: ignoring reality is a road few dare tread.