By Jimmy Stephens

---

Introduction

In the ongoing debate between evolution and creationism, one often overlooked but critical issue is the epistemological foundation upon which evolutionary theory stands. This foundation is known as uniformitarianism—the assumption that the processes observed today are consistent with those of the past. Without this assumption, the historical claims of evolution, particularly those regarding common ancestry, would be untenable. But how robust is this assumption? Can it withstand scrutiny from a Reformed theological perspective? Moreover, is the mechanism of natural selection, often touted as the engine of evolution, truly coherent?

---

The Problem of Uniformitarianism

Uniformitarianism, the belief in a consistent and unchanging biological paradigm over time, is central to evolutionary claims. It allows scientists to extrapolate from present observations to the distant past. For example, when a fossil is discovered, scientists assume that the processes of fossilization, biological decay, and environmental impact observed today were the same in the past. This assumption underpins their ability to reconstruct ancient life forms and their environments.

However, this assumption is far from self-evident. What reason do we have to believe that the biological processes observed today were the same in pre-historic times? More critically, what if God, in His sovereign will, intervened in history in ways that fundamentally altered biological paradigms? The Bible recounts numerous instances of divine intervention—creation, the Flood, the Incarnation, and the Resurrection—that are singular, unrepeatable events. If such interventions occurred, they would disrupt any uniform biological processes, rendering uniformitarianism not just questionable but untenable.

Theologically, uniformitarianism presupposes a deistic view of God—one where He is largely absent from the natural processes of the world, merely setting the stage and stepping back. This is in stark contrast to the Reformed understanding of God’s providence, where God is actively involved in the world, not only sustaining it but also intervening in it according to His will. Thus, the assumption of uniformitarianism is not only epistemologically shaky but also theologically incompatible with a robust Christian worldview.

---

The Incoherence of Natural Selection

Natural selection is often presented as the primary mechanism driving evolution. However, when examined closely, this concept reveals itself to be either incoherent or trivial, depending on how it is defined.

If natural selection is defined causally, it suggests that the environment “selects” for certain traits by causing certain organisms to survive and reproduce more successfully than others. However, this is falsified daily by examples where survival and reproduction occur despite environmental factors, not because of them. For instance, a lame dog that would otherwise die from predation might survive due to human intervention and go on to reproduce. Or consider an animal with poor camouflage that evades a predator purely by chance. In such cases, the environment does not “select” in any meaningful way. To insist that it does would require expanding the definition of “environment” to include every conceivable factor influencing survival, which reduces natural selection to mere determinism—a trivial notion that says nothing unique about the process of evolution.

Alternatively, if natural selection is defined stochastically—as a mere probability relation—it concedes that the environment does not cause certain traits to be passed on but merely influences the likelihood. However, probabilities are not causes; they are predictions based on observed patterns, not explanations of mechanisms. Therefore, defining natural selection in this way strips it of its power as a causal mechanism, reducing it to an observational tool with no explanatory force.

---

Underdetermination and the Problem of Evidence

Even if one were to accept uniformitarianism and natural selection, the problem of underdetermination remains. This philosophical issue arises when the evidence available does not favor one empirical theory over another. In the case of evolutionary biology, the data collected from fossils, genetic sequences, and observed species variations do not unequivocally support the theory of common ancestry. Instead, they can often be interpreted in multiple ways, depending on the assumptions one brings to the table.

For example, the classification of certain fossils as “transitional” forms is often motivated by evolutionary theory itself, not by the evidence in isolation. This circular reasoning—where the theory is used to interpret the evidence, which in turn is used to support the theory—undermines the objectivity of the conclusions drawn. Furthermore, the reliance on evolutionary phylogeny to categorize fossils and genetic data assumes the truth of evolution before it is proven, leading to a question-begging scenario.

Reformed epistemology, which begins with the presupposition of God’s revelation as the ultimate authority, challenges this approach. It calls for an interpretation of evidence that does not assume the validity of uniformitarianism or natural selection but is open to the possibility of divine intervention and unique historical events. This perspective reveals the epistemological crisis at the heart of evolutionary theory—a crisis that cannot be resolved without abandoning the very assumptions that undergird the theory.

---

Natural Kinds and Social Constructs

One of the foundational assumptions of biological classification is the existence of natural kinds—real, objective categories that organisms belong to by virtue of their intrinsic properties. However, without a justification for natural kinds, these classifications risk being reduced to mere social constructs, subject to human conventions rather than grounded in reality. This reduction undermines the objectivity and reliability of biological science.

From a Christian perspective, the doctrine of creation provides the necessary metaphysical grounding for natural kinds. According to Scripture, God created all living things according to their kinds (Genesis 1:21-25), implying that these kinds have real, objective existence. Without this theological foundation, the justification for natural kinds becomes elusive, and biological classifications lose their objective basis.

---

The Fallibility of Biological Classifications

Moreover, biological classifications are inherently fallible and subject to revision. Scientists often disagree about how to classify organisms, and these disagreements highlight the provisional nature of these classifications. This fallibility is exacerbated by the fact that many classifications are based on incomplete or contested evidence, leading to frequent re-evaluations and shifts in the understanding of phylogeny.

---

The Historical Contingency of Phylogeny

Much of phylogeny—the study of the evolutionary history and relationships among species—is historically contingent. It relies on constructing historical narratives based on fossil records, genetic data, and other evidence. However, these narratives are themselves subject to revision and contestation, especially when they are built on problematic assumptions, such as those underlying evolutionary history. Consequently, any errors or inconsistencies in the historical account can lead to mistakes in the classification of organisms.

This historical contingency further underscores the epistemological crisis facing evolutionary biology. Without a reliable account of history, phylogenetic classifications are prone to error, making them less trustworthy as tools for understanding the natural world.

---

Metaphorical Realism and the Fictional Haze

The philosophical issue of underdetermination further complicates the discussion of scientific realism, particularly concerning the subset of unobservables known as scientific entities. Under this view, these entities—such as quarks, black holes, or even evolutionary mechanisms—cannot be conclusively proven to exist in the way we perceive them. Instead, they represent a blend of fiction, metaphor, or both—a concept we might call “the fictional haze.”

This “fictional haze” implies that much of what is taken as scientific fact is, in reality, a collection of theoretical constructs that help explain observed phenomena but may not correspond directly to any actual entities in the world. This aligns with the view of metaphorical realism or modified instrumentalism, where scientific theories are seen not as literal truths but as useful fictions that guide our understanding of the world.

From a Reformed epistemological perspective, this fictional haze underscores the importance of grounding our understanding of the world in divine revelation rather than in the shifting sands of human theorizing. Theories that emerge from the fictional haze are not sufficient to supplant the truth revealed in Scripture, which provides a stable foundation for interpreting the world, including the biological realm.

---

Conclusion

The Reformed critique of evolutionary theory, grounded in a robust theological and philosophical framework, exposes the weaknesses of uniformitarianism and natural selection. These concepts, far from being the pillars of a well-supported scientific theory, are revealed to be fraught with epistemological and logical problems. Uniformitarianism assumes what it needs to prove, ignoring the possibility of divine intervention that would render its conclusions invalid. Natural selection, when scrutinized, either collapses into triviality or fails to function as a causal mechanism.

In light of these issues, it is clear that evolutionary theory, as it stands, is not a viable alternative to the biblical account of creation. It relies on assumptions that are both theologically suspect and philosophically weak. For Christians seeking to understand the origins of life and the history of the world, it is essential to approach these questions with a critical eye, grounded in the truth of God’s Word and the wisdom of Reformed theology.