The Christadelphian magazine and evolution. Part 3 - John Hellawell

The April 2015 edition of The Christadelphian carries an article by freshwater ecologist John Hellawell, which like the previous two attacks on evolutionary biology fails to differentiate between evolution as fact and evolution as theory, which means its argument is ultimately aimed at a straw man version of evolution. Further undermining its credibility is its invocation of long-rebutted special creationist arguments such as 'survival of the fittest' being a tautology. It also makes attacks which are readily dismissed by anyone with a grasp of developmental biology and population genetics. Finally, it invokes the tired 'halting between two opinions' trope in which the author pits evolution against creation, a strategy which will simply help catalyse a loss of faith in those who have been inculcated with this false dilemma. Those who have been told that our faith is based on evolution being false are hardly to be blamed for abandoning us when they discover that contrary to what Hellawell and others assert, the evidence for evolution is beyond dispute.

Examples of poor Christadelphian anti-evolution arguments - 4

BSCE and John Hellawell - The Darwin Delusion

Many Christian sects used the 150th anniversary of the publication of the 1st edition of Darwin's The Origin of Species to attack evolutionary biology. Unfortunately, our community did not resist the temptation to gatecrash the party. John Hellawell, a retired freshwater ecologist who has written at least one anti-evolution tract [1] gave a number of talks timed to coincide with the celebrations [2]. One of his talks, given at Redditch in the United Kingdom was attended by members of the British Centre for Science Education, an anti-creationist organisation. The report of his talk and the Q&A session afterwards makes for depressing reading. [3]

The talk started with a glowing introduction to Dr Hellawell informing us how qualified a biologist he was and how the guy introducing him couldn’t even pronounce what his PhD was in. That suggested to me that those who’d invited him wouldn’t be qualified to know if he was telling the truth or not.

Understanding God's Word through His Creation - 6

Evolution - More than "Just a Theory"

The considerable fossil evidence for human evolution is a topic many Christians prefer to pretend does not exist. Geologist and evangelical Christian Davis Young observes:

The modern evangelical church is extremely sensitive about open discussion of scientific issues that bear on Genesis 1-11. Enough Christians are so afraid of what might turn up in such discussions that anyone who does try to explore the issues is in ecclesiastical jeopardy. The prevailing atmosphere of fear tends to squelch attempts to deal with these issues. The issue of the origin of humankind is especially sensitive. It seems that the church is afraid to look into paleoanthropology. Where is the curiosity about the physical history of human beings? Among the multitude of evangelical commentaries on Genesis, hardly any of them address the problems of anthropology. Geology is often discussed. Some of the commentators have admitted the possibility of a local flood; others are not yet sure of the legitimacy of geological findings. But virtually all of the commentators assume the anthropological universality of the flood without any engagement whatsoever with the archaeological and anthropological data relevant to the question of the flood's impact on the human race. It's as if the hundreds, perhaps thousands of ancient human sites around the world didn't exist. [41]

For Christians who believe as a matter of faith that Adam and Eve were the ancestors of the entire human race and were created approximately six to ten thousand years ago, the considerable archaeological and palaeoanthropological evidence of human existence extending back to nearly 200,000 years ago is often treated by ignoring it. As Young lamented however, any attempt to understand how this evidence can be reconciled with the Genesis account, or even to mention that it exists often places the questioner in “ecclesiastical jeopardy.”