On Why Evolution is True

Introduction

Darwin catapulted the theory of evolution to the main stage with his Origin of Species. In Why Evolution is True, Coyne (2009) takes a look at the theory of evolution and breaks it down from various perspectives to show why it has more explanatory power than the theory of Creationism. This review identifies the themes in Coynes (2009) book, discusses my own personal journey of discovery, addresses the issue of evolution from philosophical, theological and sociological points of view, and finally offers a critique and evaluation of the book.

Themes

Coynes (2009) book is divided into nine chapters with each chapter focusing on a specific theme. The first chapter defines evolution. The second looks at what the Earths crust reveals about evolution. The third discusses how biology is only understandable from the standpoint of evolution. The fourth examines the biogeographic evidence for evolution. The fifth identifies how evolution worksthe mechanics of the process. The sixth focuses on the role that sex plays in determining evolutionary processes. The seventh focuses on Darwins contribution to the theory. The eighth examines how human beings can perceive themselves in the light of evolutionary theory. The ninth discusses how human beings can perceive the world around them from an evolutionary point of view.

These themes are all grounded within the framework of Darwinism and the modern theory of evolution, which Coyne (2009) defines in the following manner: Life on Earth evolved gradually beginning with one primitive speciesperhaps a self-replicating moleculethat lived more than 3.5 billion years ago; it then branched out over time, throwing off many new and diverse species; and the mechanism for most (but not all) of evolutionary change is natural selection (p. 3). Interestingly, Coyne (2009) does not reference the First Mover argument of Aquinas or clarify the actual origin of species in the cosmological framework of modern evolution. The origin remains ambiguous: perhaps a self-replicating molecule (p. 3). The assumption is that one should be willing to accept this ambiguity based on the mountain of evidence and argumentation that follows. Yet if one returns to the question of the First Mover, one must ask where, when, how and why this supposed first self-replicating molecule came into existence. Evolution does not answer this question. It merely explains how life on the planet evolved and provides an argument for how human beings came into existence through the process of natural selection. The important point that Coyne (2009) makes is that evolution is simply a theory about the process and patterns of lifes diversification, not a grand philosophical scheme about the meaning of life (p. 245). That said, there are potentially important ramifications for ones religious views if one adopts the Darwinian theory.

Personal Journey of Discovery

I was raised to believe that God created the world. The creation story described in Genesis was the basis for this belief. In that story, God clearly is described as creating the world and the first man and woman. Going to church, this belief was reinforced in me week after week for many years. However, as I grew up also attending public school, a different version of events was taught me there, and that version included the possibility that human life evolved via natural selection as described in the theory of evolution. For me, these two conflicting points of view on where life came from was a problem because it affected my faith and my reason for believing in God. If the creation story was true, one owed ones existence to God and ought to worship Him the way the church prescribed. If the creation story was not true, and one did not owe ones existence to God, one had no one to thank for life but the natural process of natural selection. One was under no obligation to conform ones life to the standards proscribed by the church or to worship accordingly. Life could be viewed as a kind of happy accident and one could certainly continue to live a moral life, but one was not obligated to be, for instance, a Christian. Christianity posited that man was created, fell through sin, and was in need of redemption. If evolution was true, Christianity was a lienothing more than a myth to get people to act in a certain manner by conforming to standards promoted by the Christian church.

Viewing the problem from this either/or perspective, I felt frustrated and conflicted. On the one hand, I had grown up loving God and feeling thankful for the life He had given me; at the same time, I often found...

As I entertained the notion of evolution, I wondered whether I was considering it because, if accepted, it would mean I would not have to feel any more the pressure to conform my conduct to high standards that I often failed to meet. Was evolution the easy way out? What if it was wrong and God was real and I ended up losing my soul by taking the easy way out? These were serious questions for me, as I am certain they are serious questions for anyone who embarks upon the topic of evolution from a religious background.

Thus, my journey began in the only way I knew how: to ask the basic questions of cosmological origins from a rational perspective. I had been influenced by Thomistic theologythe theology of Thomas Aquinas, who insisted on the First Mover thesis, which is that

Along the way, I read more, and recently I read Tom Wolfes The Kingdom of Speech, a book in which he describes Darwins theory, where it came from and why human speech is the one thing that Darwin could not account for. In the book, Wolfe does not argue that God created the world, but he does point out that Darwins theory is merely one more cosmological theory of how life began and that it is no different and has no more merit than any other cosmological theory to have ever come along. His argument was that after the skepticism and naturalism that followed the Enlightenment Era, people were more inclined to view Darwinism as an acceptable cosmology because they had no belief in God or Creationism and natural selection made sense considering the arguments that Darwin made in Origin of Species. Not everyone, of course, agreed and many found the thesis that man evolved from monkeys to be insulting. I thought hat Wolfes book was well-written and that his argument about speech was worth considering. It also made me think of the Kubrick film 2001: A Space Odyssey. In that film, the evolution of the human race is triggered by a mysterious black monolith that, when touched, catapults the apes at the beginning of the film into technologically-inclined humans; later a human is catapulted into a purely intellectual or perhaps even angelic being after coming once more into contact with a monolith in space. The idea presented is that in order for evolutionary leaps to occur, a mysterious agent prompting advancement is required. Of course, this is just a film and not an examination of scientific fact, but it had a powerful hold on my imagination. It returned me to the question of Aquinas and the First Mover idea. For this reason, I could not firmly and unequivocally accept the theory of evolution in spite of evidence depicting a process of natural selection. In fact, I had no problem with natural selection. The problem I had was where the first self-replicating molecule came from. Without an explanation for this, I had no logical recourse other than to assert that Aquinas was right. Coynes (2009) book, although impressive in its approach to the evidence that supports evolution via natural selection, does not settle the matter of how it all began. For me, that has been the big question. And without an explanation for that, the story of religion and of Christianity retains its powerful hold on me. Without a First Mover, I do not see how life began at all. And if there is a First Mover, What or Who is It/He? As Aquinas shows, of course, there is ample evidence to answer this question as well, which leads one to a cosmology completely different from Darwins. Thus, in my personal journey it is matter of choosing between the cosmology of Darwin and the cosmology of the Church. That is what brings me to make the following philosophical, theological and sociological reflections.

Philosophical, Theological and Sociological Reflections

As Coyne (2009) notes, the theory of evolution is not a philosophical theory. However, if one accepts it there are philosophical, theological and sociological ramifications: life, it would appear, is governed by natural selection, according to the theory; therefore, in such a world does it not make sense to become an Ethical Egoistsince survival of the fittest is the ultimate aim? Yet what does fittest mean? Is one who embraces the system of virtue ethics fitter than one who is an ethical egoist? If all die, what difference does it make whether ones genes are passed on? If there is no judgment, why does it matter how one acts in life if there is only natural selection? Evolution does not answer these questions. It serves as an obstacle, however, if one is trying to believe…