Evolutionary Mechanisms

A fantastically touchy topic for many, the mechanism behind evolution is one that has been long debated over. The issue in which most see is that if the mechanism behind evolution is natural and without design, then there is no room or 'need' for religious implications of a special creator. In essence, many individuals feel challenged by this idea as knocking down their worldview and religious practice. For these individuals, science and religion are often seen as 'opposing forces' and opposite ends of a spectrum in which neither can exist in light of the other, or that they are always 'at odds' with one another. But before we go on, 'evolution' or the transmutation of species over time is something far different from the mechanism in which it occurs. Natural and sexual selections are theories, just as special creation is a theory, so lets not get off on the wrong foot and think that we're analyzing two different things.

So lets break these two theories down into each respective argument and take a good look. 'Science' (which is hardly a proper term to use here, as we are talking about only one aspect of sciences) is largely based on 'proofs', or in the case of theorizing about mechanisms of selection what logically cannot be disproven. Natural selection can be broken down in to two separate 'reasons'; survival and reproduction. Richard Dawkins explains a fantastic example of the simplicity of these aspects; molecules that we call 'replicators' are coded to make more of themselves. However, some replicators in different environments may replicate more efficiently given the chemical composition, and likewise some may be hampered. In addition, there is always the chance that the replication will not be a perfect copy, which in turn may make the new replicator more or less efficient at doing what it does: replicate! This is the level of autonomy that is suggested by modern selection methods, and that over the course of billions of years the slightest changes will allow organisms to be more efficient at replicating and thus do what they do best; replicate.

So we have seen the conflict then that comes with the notion that all 'life' could have spawned through a completely autonomous process; where is the room for special creation? This of course is countered by the idea that such processes are so slight in chance, or that much of it seems very random it explains little in terms of how life begins. Some of these arguments have come from a misunderstanding of the nature of evolution, such as the classic 'mouse trap' scenario. The individual pieces of a mouse trap do not catch a mouse, as the purpose of the mouse trap, but when put together they work, and we analogize animals to the mouse trap, there appears to be little room for autonomous processes to create such a complex machine. This of course is not the way in which selection works; each individual piece of the mouse trap can be used for a number of purposes, and it just happens when put together in a certain way they can be used to catch mice. But that is not to say that the special creation arguments are all simply misconceptions of evolution. We can never say with confidence that it is one way or another, and there are still many aspects of biology which are still in question as to the mechanism behind them, for example altruistic behavior (without reciprocity) such as a soldier throwing themself onto a grenade to save their platoon. This does not incur any reproductive success or survival of their own genes as it negates their ability to do so, and thus must still be considered a bit of a gap in theory.

So what can we really say about science and religion, naturalistic vs special selections? Ultimately, there is inconclusive data to really figure out what is going on and say for sure what to accept and reject. However, what we can remember is that science and religion are quite happy to exist along side each other. In a survey of students in ANTH/EEB 3002, the majority of the class selected the answer that science and religious notions can function just fine together when confronted with this kind of issue. In the end, there is room for the individual to hold their own in what they believe and accept as mechanisms. Science does not seek to disprove religion, nor does it do so. It only has the ability to push our notions of what may have been special creation back to even the most simplest of things, and it is highly unlikely that it will ever be able to be fully disproven, even if it cannot be proved. What we must keep in mind is what is typically referred to as Occam's Razor, or that the simplest hypothesis with the least assumptions will often be the correct one, logically.