Publications
Partners
An overwhelming majority of people, who don’t feel, know or believe that evolution, in the context of the development of life since the first self-duplicating strands of RNA up to the wide variety of organisms seen today, is a real thing. Yet, a theoretical and practical study of physical and biological sciences reveals the edge-pieces of a puzzle. Sure, there are huge gaps in our current understanding of evolution, but the framework seems to be clearly resolved to an extent that I, and the majority of the scientific community, am confident enough to apply this knowledge to further research and make findings that objectively recapitulate, modify and sometimes change how we understand such mechanisms.
One person I especially admire for his work, going to great lengths to explain, visualise and unwrap the clues in nature for those of us who cannot visit each site or immediately comprehend what we see, is David Attenborough. Among people, he is surely one of my role models. In his 1984 series, the living planet, he starts off the first episode with the question: “How did the ammonites (held in his hands), found in the Himalayas at such a high altitude, get there?” The episode takes us through the fascinating field of plate tectonics, volcanic eruptions (my jaw once again dropping to the floor at realising the explosion of Krakatoa could be heard up to 4800 km from the point of origin) and how some animals owe nothing to the sun, a source of energy on which we thought every creature was dependent until less than a century ago. The episode concludes with the answer, that the Himalayas are infants in comparison to other mountain ranges, with India colliding with the Asian continent, pushing up the seabed to become the rooftop of the world.
Plate tectonics itself doesn't imply evolution, but the vast age of the earth. The story of evolution is carefully unfolded in length one series prior in Life on Earth, released in 1979. It is well worth watching despite the hideous soundtrack, trust me. There are numerous areas where rock formations are exposed, the different layers revealing creatures of varying degrees of complexity, each found exclusively in its own layer. Most of them share characteristics with animals that still reside on earth with us today, those that specialised on a specific mechanism of thriving in their original niches staying quite unchanged, others scouting for new environments with less competition once again starting to specialize in a new environment. There is evidence of failures, because evolution in itself does not care for long-term survival and does not ensure it. And we are one species among many, with ancestors that came near to extinction and with descendants that will inevitably face similar challenges, just with more thinking power that can perhaps prolong the probable inevitability.
Charles Darwin lived in time before the field of Genetics was known, and David Attenborough’s earlier works could rely only on very vague and basic concepts of genetics. With rapidly improving computing technology, collaborations and public databases, genetics and biochemistry are interwoven mechanisms that are becoming clearer to our small minds every day, increasing the resolution of the large puzzle that is life, like a terapixel image buffering and resolving. We might never have an all-encompassing image in the end, but as a scientist, I am thankful, because it basically equates to giving a child puzzles or video games of infinite supply – it is ours to discover, in which to indulge and at which to marvel. I am one of those geneticists fortunate enough to do research in a time where I can stand on the shoulders of giants for a better view and momentum.
As to why it can be a stumbling block – though it is not solely the domain of some of the religious (non-believers in God don’t always arise because of evolution, as not all once believed in a mere god of the gaps), most anti-evolutionists are indeed religious. There are different levels of reasons (as a Christian, I cannot speak for other religions, and as a human I can only speak of what I know, experience or can comprehend). One obvious reason is the strong belief that every word of the Bible is literal, along with a timeline of 6000 years. In itself, it doesn’t matter to me; in fact, I attend a church that holds to YEC. If the whole point of that church was to promote YEC, I would obviously not attend, but I withstand the urge to grate my teeth on the odd occasion that the fact of YEC is reiterated, and embrace the deep message and feeling of truth I receive and learn there. Call it cognitive dissonance if you will, but it is what I experience there that mitigates my annoyance with the specific topic. For all YEC believers out there, it really does not matter to me, the Bible constantly asks Christians for unity, and I believe we need to have that unity despite how we believe the earth came to be.
To the non-believers, I can only say this because the how of the earth or of us or of anything is not the question that the Bible particularly addresses or expands on, but rather the why, whether that is important to you or makes sense to you or not. For that reason I am sad when believers argue with non-believers about evolution – what will such an argument resolve from the believer’s perspective? No-one will turn to God or Christ if they are suddenly convinced that evolution is wrong. In fact, it drives people away, repels them like the smell of a hard day’s work.
Apart from the Christian perspective, I can in a way relate to anti-evolutionists on a small level – the difficulty of our minds grasping such huge concepts. I was driven to write this article while in the shower – that mystical place of philosophy – when I was trying to imagine how sauropods came about. Even with the frame and increasing resolution of the image on life’s puzzle, I still cannot wrap my head around all of it. However, that does not detract from the rest of the image that has been unfolded, it does not change my perception of how life seems to work and it certainly does not offer another explanation. Yes, I believe God is the Creator, but I can only understand His creation through what I see, know and experience. To me it is nicely linked to the apostle Paul saying that we only see in part as things are now, and I believe we will see more after.
Concerning the Genesis creation account, various Christians, as early as the 5th Century AD had already stated that the Genesis account could be seen as figurative, long before the age of the earth could be properly estimated. Thus, this statement was not made in response to the increasing age of the earth as we understood it, and it is a belief I also hold.
In conclusion, I cannot really be a true representative of anyone but myself, though I strive to be a representative of Christ. I don’t feel it is my job to inform everyone around me about the age of the earth or evolution as I see it, but I do flinch when I see the emphasis on YEC being flung onto News24 and other areas of my life. To all camps: try to keep an open mind without your brain falling out along the way, always strive to grow and live a life that would represent the one you love most, whether that be yourself, a lover, family, friend or God.
