Why are Christian philosophers running towards Darwin while biologists are "running" away?

As nature reveals the strength of epigenetics and the weakness of Neo-Darwinism, biologists are “running” away from the long-standing accepted theory. In The Federalist, April 2019, Benjamin Dierker reviews “Why one-third of biologists now question Darwinism”:

"Current estimates are that approximately one-third of professional academic biologists who do not believe in intelligent design find Darwin’s Theory inadequate to describe all of the complexity in biology.”

Dierker continues, “The important note is that these are not ideologues or religious zealots, nor do they propose a god or biblical solution.  Rather, they find problems in the lack of explanatory power of Darwin’s theory in light of modern understanding of mutation, variation, DNA sequencing and more. These expressions of doubt do not reject naturalism or evolution per se, but the rigor of the Neo-Darwinian model for explaining the development of life.”

For 40 years, scientists calculated natural selection based on random mutation rates. There are over 1,000 articles in Pubmed, stating that these are instead, biased mutation rates. Therefore, natural selection is now explained by biased mutations (AT>GC & GC>AT) which are not random. If you don't have random mutations, you don't have natural selection. As the Nature article below states, this requires a new understanding that mutations are directed by cellular mechanisms. Since 2012, research articles reveal the strength of epigenetic biased mutations and the weakness of random mutations and Neo-Darwinists are aware of this paradigm change.

Since the 1990s, biologists realized the engine for mutations in DNA polymerases is not the primary cause for mutations; rather, evidence was pointing to epigenetics as the cause. But due to a lack of academic communication, this paradigm change has been unknown to many. Numerous studies continued to measure random mutations as a validation of natural selection.

Indeed, in the last five years, it has been established that epigenetics and complex repair mechanisms actually cause biased mutations. These biased mutations drive epigenetic adaptation rapidly at 10,000-100,000 times the speed of any random mutations.

Epimutations rates were 10,000 to 100,000 times faster than its genetic mutation rate. GENOME BIOL, 2020

These biased mutations cause a "codon bias" so that selection does not occur at the DNA level, but at the RNA, where "Junk" noncoding RNA(ncRNA) and epigenetics break the Darwinian Central dogma.

Instead of the central dogma:

DNA > RNA > Protein > phenotype (organism),

We now have:

DNA > exonic RNA (2%) plus Junk ncRNA (98%) > ncRNA plus epigenetics "rewiring" the exonic RNA > Protein which epigenetics shapes > rapid new phenotypic adaptation.

This phenomenon does away with the Darwinian view of neutral synonymous (Ns) mutations, as "codon bias" can include these synonymous changes for epigenetic adaptation. These biased mutations at the epigenetic level mimic natural selection. For 30 years, natural selection was assumed as the mechanism since we did not know about these cellular mechanisms. Consequently, natural selection is losing ground as epigenetic research results dominate published academic papers.

"Since the first half of the twentieth century, evolutionary theory has been dominated by the idea that mutations occur randomly with respect to their consequences.

We demonstrate that epigenomic and physical features explain over 90% of the variance in the genome-wide pattern of mutation bias surrounding genes.

Our discovery yields a new account of the forces driving patterns of natural variation, challenging a long-standing paradigm regarding the randomness of mutation …This discovery yields a new account of the forces driving patterns of natural variation, challenging a long-standing paradigm regarding the randomness of mutations.” -Nature, below

Additional evidence of biologists distancing themselves from Neo-Darwinism was published in The Guardian three weeks ago (July 2022). Stephen Buranyi asks: "Do we need a new theory of evolution?" The article points out:

“For one thing, this is a battle of ideas over the fate of one of the grand theories that shaped the modern age … And underneath all this lurks another, more profound question: Whether the idea of an excellent biology story is a fairytale we need to finally give up.”

“During a Q&A at a conference in 2017 by Dr. Massimo Pigliucci (a former professor of evolution at Stony Brook University in New York), one audience member commented that the disagreement between Extended Evolutionary Synthesis {epigenetics} proponents and more conservative biologists (neo Darwinists) sometimes looked more like a culture war than a scientific disagreement. ‘Pigliucci replied: ‘Sure, it’s a culture war, and we’re going to win it,’ and HALF the room burst out cheering.” (emphasis mine)

Those cheering are typically younger biologists, as a web survey of epigenetic programs shows researchers are rarely above 35 years old. PZ Myers, a staunch Darwinist on the other side of the culture war, laments that half of his grad students are moving into epigenetics. Conrad Waddington, the father of epigenetics, in a letter to Nature the year Modern Synthesis was published in 1942, said:

“It is doubtful however, whether even the most statistically minded geneticists are entirely satisfied that nothing more is involved than sorting out of random mutations by the natural selective filter."

In the movie Ghostbusters, Dan Aykroyd realized academia was a cakewalk. When asked by Bill Murray, "Hey, let's go work for private research," Aykroyd exclaimed, "You've never worked for them, they expect results!" This exchange mimics real academia where "Darwin did it" articles quickly pass through review. And just as Aykroyd pointed out, private industry is expecting results.

In the last ten years, medicine has been driving epigenetic research.  There have been 123,000 hits in the previous ten years on epigenetics in Pubmed, where there are only 179 mentions of the "modern synthesis" aka "theory of evolution" aka Neo-Darwinism.  At least half of these articles say the modern synthesis needs a significant overhaul, if not outright replacement.

ASTONISHING.

It was not Intelligent Design or creationists that caused biologists to lose faith in Neo-Darwinism; instead, the 123,000 epigenetic results, which are hard to ignore. Despite the exodus of biologists from Neo-Darwinism, some Christian philosophers and theologians are incorporating this theory as an essential assumption (and thus, underlying interpretation) in their models. 


As is the case in biology, differences in interpretation of scientific data are opportunities for dialogue, in order to gain understanding, adjust and work toward a stronger model.  What if YES is the answer to Buranyi’s question, “Underneath all this lurks another, deeper question: whether the idea of a grand story of biology is a fairytale we need to finally give up?”

As with secular biologists, the strength of epigenetics research is a compelling reason for Christian philosophers and theologians to reevaluate and to once and for all, let go of Neo-Darwinism. Epigenetics adds to the natural revelation as well as further complexifies nature. It screams design as never before, and to a creator. Psalm 104:24 captures this revelation:

Psalms 104:24 - “How many living things you have made, O LORD! You have exhibited great skill in making all of them; the earth is full of the living things you have made."

Nature reveals the strength of epigenetics and the weakness of Neo-Darwinism. Epigenetics also explain certain aspects of the Bible. For example, consider the "Sins of the father":

“When Dr. Brian Dias became a father last October, he was, like any new parent, mindful of the enormous responsibility that lay before him. From that moment on, every choice he made could affect his newborn son's physical and psychological development. But, unlike most new parents, Dias was also aware of the influence of his past experiences — not to mention those of his parents, his grandparents, and beyond.

In Dr. Kerry Ressler’s laboratory, they examined the inheritance of parental traumatic exposure. Their “Findings provide a framework for addressing how environmental information may be inherited transgenerationally at behavioral, neuroanatomical and epigenetic levels.”

-Epigenetics: The Sins of the Father -Nature, below

This is transgenerational inheritance which was first rejected by Neo-Darwinism in 1900 and further rejected by the Modern Synthesis in 1942. Scientists have shown mice with induced PTSD, transmitting the illness to their 3^rd and 4th generations. This suggests that the violation of the Ten Commandments may have resulted in negative behavioral transgenerational inheritance to progeny up to the 3^rd and 4^th generation:

Exodus 20:5: “I, the LORD, your God, am a jealous God, responding to the transgression of fathers by dealing with children to the third and fourth generations of those who reject me,”

Keeping the Ten Commandments may also have resulted in positive behavioral transgenerational inheritance:

Exodus 20:6 - “And showing covenant faithfulness to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments.”

Theologically, we struggled with why God unfairly imputed the sins of the father on innocent progeny. Instead, He was actually warning of the consequences of their behaviors (now revealed as inherited epigenetics). This possibly explains Adam's original sin as well.

More and more epigenetic evidence is being revealed, which is consistent with Christianity. Epigenetic research on illnesses like depression, PTSD, addictions and sexual abuse, to name a few, reveal epigenetic connections. For all of these issues, theologians now have answers to share in their ministry. They can now know that it it's merely a spiritual matter. They can provide encouragement on the medical issue at hand, lend prayer for the individual’s walk and refer them to the right professional. Neo-Darwinian medicine, on the other hand, does not offer any answers.
I hope this opens an avenue for conversations with theistic creationist philosophers and theologians to learn about epigenetics, and therefore, to reevaluate Neo-Darwinism and consider applications in their ministry and apologetic.

Works Cited

Buranyi, Stephen. “Do we need a new theory of evolution?” The Guardian, 28 June 2022, https://www.theguardian.com/science/2022/jun/28/do-we-need-a-new-theory-of-evolutio n. Accessed 3 August 2022.

Dias, B., Ressler, K. Parental olfactory experience influences behavior and neural structure in subsequent generations. Nat Neurosci 17, 89–96 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.3594

Dierker, Benjamin R. “Why One-Third Of Biologists Now Question Darwinism.” The Federalist, 16 April 2019, https://thefederalist.com/2019/04/16/one-third-biologists-now-question-darwinism/.

Accessed 3 August 2022.

“Epimutation rates were 10,000 to 100,000 times faster than its genetic mutation rate.” GENOME BIOL, 2020.

Hughes, V. Epigenetics: The sins of the father. The roots of inheritance may extend beyond the genome, but the mechanisms remain a puzzle. Nature 507, 22–24 (2014).

https://doi.org/10.1038/507022a

Monroe, J.G., Srikant, T., Carbonell-Bejerano, P. et al. Mutation bias reflects natural selection in Arabidopsis thaliana. Nature 602, 101–105 (2022).

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-04269-6

Quax, Tessa E F et al. “Codon Bias as aMeans to Fine-Tune Gene Expression.” Molecular Cell, vol. 59,2 (2015): 149-61. doi:10.1016/j.molcel.2015.05.035

Waddington, C. Canalization of Developement and the Inheritance of Acquired Characters.

Nature 150, 563–565 (1942). https://doi.org/10.1038/150563a0

Dr. Vaughn Mancha contact information: