Does Nothing in Evolution Make Sense Except in the Light of Bad Theology?
Back in 1973, Theodosius Dobzhansky (1900-1975) famously claimed that "nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution."1 He would know. As an architect of neo-Darwinism, he is considered by some as "the greatest evolutionary geneticist of our times."2 Dobzhansky's iconic phrase was originally the title of an article in which he presented arguments showing why he believed evolution alone makes sense of biology. Strikingly, all of his arguments rely on theological claims about God's nature or ways.
Dobzhansky is in good company. Other prominent biologists also use theology-laden arguments for evolution, including, at times, in their self-reported best stand-alone arguments for evolution. Such luminaries include Stephen Jay Gould, Niles Eldredge, Douglas Futuyma, Francisco Ayala, Jerry Coyne, Emile Zuckerkandl, Richard Dawkins, George Williams, Francis Collins, and Kenneth Miller—not to mention Charles Darwin himself.3 Of course, not all arguments for evolution rely upon theology, but, contrary to conventional wisdom, many do. In what follows, I will analyze the two most prominent theology-laden arguments for evolution from Dobzhansky's article.
Setting the Stage
But before turning to the arguments themselves, a few preliminaries are in order. By "evolution," Dobzhansky means "common ancestry," the view that all organisms—past, present, and future—are the descendants of a single original organism that lived billions of years ago. By "creationism," he means the view that God created each species individually by separate miraculous acts only a few thousand years ago.
Importantly, my aim is not to defend creationism. (If it matters, I don't accept that view.) Instead, I wish to show that Dobzhansky's arguments for evolution depend upon his partisan claims about what the God of creationism would do. Dobzhansky imposes his own sensibilities upon the creationists' God.
Note, too, that it doesn't matter what Dobzhansky's personal religious belief are. The theological claims in his arguments for evolution stand or fall on their own, just as his scientific claims do. Any given claim turns on its own merits.
The Self-Limiting Creator
The first argument concerns the wide diversity of living creatures and how it came to be. Dobzhansky, of course, contends that evolutionary explanations better account for this diversity than do creationist ones. He notes the different kinds of diversity exhibited by living beings, such as their extensive differences in size, degree of complexity, and level of adaptability, but he focuses on adaptability.
In this regard, he points out that, unlike human beings, who can live in many different environments, some creatures can only live in highly specific and rare environments. For instance:
Larvae of the fly Psilopa petrolei develop in seepages of crude oil in California oilfields; as far as is known they occur nowhere else. This is the only insect able to live and feed in oil, and its adult can walk on the surface of the oil only as long as no body part other than the tarsi are in contact with the oil. Larvae of the fly Drosophila carcinophila develop only in the nephric grooves beneath the flaps of the third maxilliped of the land crab Geocarcinus ruricola, which is restricted to certain islands in the Caribbean.4
Such creatures are "seemingly whimsical and superfluous," he says.5 But why does the difference in adaptability between these creatures and humans make sense only in the light of evolution? Couldn't creationist theory also account for it? Dobzhansky explains:
There is, of course, nothing conscious or intentional in the action of natural selection. . . . Natural selection is at one and the same time a blind and creative process. . . . [It] does not work according to a foreordained plan, and species are produced not because they are needed for some purpose but simply because there is an environmental opportunity and genetic wherewithal to make them possible. Was the Creator in a jocular mood when he made Psilopa petrolei for California oil-fields and species of Drosophila to live exclusively on some body-parts of certain land crabs on only certain islands in the Caribbean?6
That last question is, of course, rhetorical. Dobzhansky can see no purpose or reason in God's deliberately making some creatures narrowly adaptable while making others, like humans, highly adaptable. But on his view it is easy to see how natural selection, being "at one and the same time a blind and a creative process,"7 without either goal or guidance, could easily produce organisms with wide-ranging degrees of adaptability. Hence, evolutionary theory better explains the diversity of living things than does creationism, at least with respect to adaptability.
But notice that, among other things, this argument hinges upon the theological assertion that the God of creationism would not create species all along the full spectrum of adaptability—from those with virtually no capacity to adapt to a different environment (like the Drosophila carcinophila) to those that can adapt to almost any environment (human beings preeminently).
But, you may ask, why would God not do so? Dobzhansky doesn't say; he merely makes the assertion. He just assumes that God would limit himself to making creatures with at least moderate levels of adaptability, in particular being careful to avoid creating any species that can live only in a very specialized environmental niche. Apparently, a God of immense power and creativity would not freely produce the whole stunning array of adaptability that we see in nature. Without this theological assumption, Dobzhansky's argument for natural selection falters.
The Prodigiously Innovative Creator
The second argument has to do with what Dobzhansky calls "biochemical universals," that is, biochemical traits or processes common to all living things. These universals, he writes, "are the most impressive and the most recently discovered . . . vestiges of creation by means of evolution."8 Three universals common to all species stand out: the genetic code, the process of translation into proteins, and certain features of cellular metabolism. Dobzhansky argues that evolution, rather than creationism, explains the presence of these universals:
What do these biochemical or biologic universals mean? They suggest that life arose from inanimate matter only once and that all organisms, no matter how diverse in other respects, conserve the basic features of the primordial life. . . . But what if there was no evolution and every one of the millions of species were created by separate fiat? However offensive the notion may be to religious feeling and to reason, the antievolutionists must . . . accuse the Creator of cheating. They must insist that He deliberately arranged things exactly as if his method of creation was evolution, intentionally to mislead sincere seekers of truth.9
Dobzhansky implies that the God of creationism would never create biochemical universals, because to do so would be tantamount to deliberate deception, making it appear as if he created via an evolutionary process when he actually created by separate miracles. On Dobzhansky's view, here's why: From an evolutionary perspective, all organisms share a single source of life—their common ancestor. We would therefore expect all organisms to share certain basic biochemical features, the "biochemical universals." But if God created each species via separate creative acts, then we would be surprised to find them all sharing the same underlying physical features. In other words, biochemical universals are expected given evolution, but unexpected given miraculous creation.
Just why are biochemical universals contrary to the creationist hypothesis? Dobzhansky does not say. His claim here is more implied than stated outright, but it amounts to this: If God had created each species separately, he would have fashioned each one to have its own unique set of biochemical elements—its own digital code, its own method of protein translation, and it own metabolic process. He would not have created using a common design plan, modifying it as appropriate for each individual species. Instead, he would have always started from scratch. Insofar as God decided to create many species, he would have created many different biochemical designs. In the matter of biochemical elements at least, the Almighty is (or would be) a prodigious innovator. Once again, Dobzhansky's particular theology undergirds his argument for evolution.
Analyzing the Arguments
Several features of these two arguments stand out. First, Dobzhansky considers them to be among the best he can make for evolution. Noting that the "diversity and the unity of life are equally striking and meaningful aspects of the living world,"10 he thinks both present powerful evidence for evolution, which he draws out in his arguments based on adaptability and on biochemical universals. In fact, he deems biochemical universals, which epitomize the unity of life, as "the most impressive" evidence for evolution.11
Second, both arguments crucially rely upon theological assumptions. If the God-talk is removed, then, in both cases, Dobzhansky's pro-evolution conclusions no longer follow from the empirical data he cites.
Third, Dobzhansky does not derive his theological conclusions from the Bible, from orthodox creeds, or even from the assertions of actual creationists. Instead, he derives them from his own theological sensibilities about what God would and wouldn't do.
Fourth, Dobzhansky does not provide any rationale for his partisan theological assumptions. Controversial assertions generally require some substantiation. But he gives none.
Fifth, Dobzhansky's theological assumptions hardly seem obvious. Must God make all organisms with similar powers of adaptability? Must he avoid creating biochemical similarity among species? Why couldn't an omnipotent being exercise freedom and discretion on these matters?
Sixth, Dobzhansky's theology is in tension with itself. On the one hand, God resembles a fastidious accountant who carefully limits organisms' diversity of adaptability. On the other hand, he resembles a bold and original inventor who produces an array of digital codes, metabolic processes, and the like. Evidently, the Creator exercises innovation and variety on certain occasions but not on others.
More to the point, when Dobzhansky finds diversity in the natural world, he claims that God would fashion similarity. But when he encounters similarity, he claims that God would create diversity. In neither case does he explain why. He simply makes assertions about the nature and activities of God that preclude any but an evolutionary explanation for the origin of living things. This has been called "tactical potpourri theology": an assemblage of conflicting theological notions deployed to achieve a strategic victory.12
Dobzhansky & Company
Perhaps the most troubling thing about all this is that Dobzhansky is not alone. As mentioned above, a number of other prominent biologists also utilize partisan theology, making arbitrary assertions about God as a way to support evolution and to refute design-based theories. These arguments are made by scientists working in many different areas, including molecular homology, embryology, biogeography, paleontology, comparative anatomy, dysteleology, organic diversity, and others.
Moreover, theology-laden arguments appear not just in polemic works defending evolution and criticizing creationism or intelligent design, but also in purportedly neutral or "purely scientific" contexts, such as encyclopedia entries and biology textbooks.13 The biologists who write and endorse these texts seem to hold, at least tacitly, that using sectarian theology to argue for evolution is fully objective and scientific.
In closing, I return to Dobzhansky's original claim. Is it true that nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution? Many say yes; others, no. Perhaps, like Dobzhansky, those who say yes rely more than they realize on personal, arbitrary, and idiosyncratic notions about God's nature and ways.
David Anderson, Ph.D.is a philosopher of science. He may be contacted at [email protected].
Get Salvo in your inbox! This article originally appeared in Salvo, Issue #34, Fall 2015 Copyright © 2026 Salvo | www.salvomag.com https://salvomag.com/article/salvo34/god-ltd
