Reasonable Defense for Today

“Evolve This!” and the Challenge of Complexity: Rhetoric, Science, and Theology in Dialogue

Image By Bing Image Creator

Philosophical and Theological Implications

Strengths of the “Evolve This!” Argument

Limitations and Risks

Young Earth Creationism (YEC)

Alternative Apologetic Strategies

12 Key Points

Discussion Questions & Answers

Carrying the Discussion Forward: Open-Ended Questions (for deeper engagement)

References

Strengths & Weaknesses of This Article Noted by the Three QCC Models

Hash Tags

APA Citations

McCoin Jr., R. (2025, August 20). “Evolve This!” and the challenge of complexity: Rhetoric, science, and theology in dialogue. Reasonable Defense for Today. AI-assisted content. https://sites.google.com/view/reasonable-defense-for-today/evolve-this

Narrative Citation

In his interdisciplinary critique of the “Evolve This!” apologetic, McCoin Jr. (2025) explores the rhetorical strengths and scientific limitations of complexity-based design arguments, offering nuanced theological alternatives.

Parenthetical Citation

(McCoin Jr., 2025)

Thesis Statement:

While the “Evolve This!” apologetic offers rhetorical appeal and intuitive simplicity in critiquing evolutionary theory, its perceived scientific imprecision and theological reductionism risk undermining credible Christian witness.

Purpose Statement:

This article does not aim to defend or dismiss the “Evolve This!” apologetic outright. Instead, it seeks to disclose its rhetorical strengths and conceptual limitations, evaluate its scientific and theological implications, and present practical alternatives for Christian thinkers committed to both intellectual integrity and public engagement.

Article

“Evolve This!” and the Challenge of Complexity: Rhetoric, Science, and Theology in Dialogue

Complexity as a Challenge to Naturalism

The phrase “Evolve This!” describes a type of apologetic argument aimed at proponents of evolutionary theory. It challenges them to explain how blind, unguided processes—such as mutation and natural selection—could produce systems of extraordinary complexity, including the human eye, the bacterial flagellum, the immune system, and consciousness.

These systems are frequently described as irreducibly complex, meaning they supposedly cannot function if any part is removed. This implies that such systems could not have evolved gradually through small, beneficial steps.

Behe’s argument centers on systems like the bacterial flagellum and the blood-clotting cascade. The eye is a favorite example: a structure with multiple interdependent parts—lens, retina, optic nerve, cornea—that must work together to produce vision. Behe claims that such systems could not have evolved through Darwinian gradualism because intermediate stages would be nonfunctional and thus not favored by natural selection.

Scientific Responses to the Eye Argument

Evolutionary biologists have responded with detailed models showing how complex systems like the eye could evolve incrementally. The progression begins with simple light-sensitive cells that offer survival advantages. Over time, curved patches of cells evolve to detect directionality, followed by the development of pinhole structures that improve resolution. Eventually, the addition of a lens allows for focused vision.

Nilsson and Pelger (1994) published a simulation demonstrating that a functional eye could evolve in less than half a million years under plausible conditions. Though not a direct observation of evolutionary history, their model shows that small, incremental changes in light sensitivity and structure, according to their construct, could produce a functional eye within reasonable evolutionary timeframes.

Comparative anatomy seems to support this model, revealing a broad spectrum of eye complexity across species—from simple photoreceptors in flatworms to compound eyes in insects and sophisticated camera-like eyes in vertebrates. This diversity may support the idea of incremental evolution rather than sudden creation.

Disclaimer: The Nilsson & Pelger (1994) model represents a theoretical simulation of eye evolution under plausible conditions. While it demonstrates the mathematical feasibility of incremental development, it does not constitute direct empirical evidence of historical evolutionary pathways. Readers should distinguish between simulation-based plausibility and observational data when evaluating such models.

Philosophical and Theological Implications

The “Evolve This!” challenge is not merely scientific—it is deeply philosophical. It asks whether randomness and necessity can produce meaning, purpose, and design. For many Christian apologists, the complexity of life points to a mind behind the mechanism—a Designer who imbues creation with order and intention.

Critics argue that invoking design without empirical evidence risks becoming a God-of-the-gaps argument—attributing unknowns to divine action rather than continuing scientific inquiry. This tension invites more profound reflection on the metaphysical foundations of both science and theology.

One must consider the question: if evolution is working to improve organisms, then why do we witness decay all around us?

A More Nuanced Approach

Rather than rejecting evolution outright, some Christian thinkers advocate for theistic evolution—the idea that God works through evolutionary processes. This view, held by scholars like Francis Collins (2006), sees no contradiction between faith and science. Collins argues that evolutionary mechanisms are compatible with divine providence and that genetic evidence strongly supports common ancestry.

Others, such as Alvin Plantinga (2000), contend that while evolution may explain biological complexity, it cannot account for rationality, morality, or consciousness—areas where divine action may be more evident. These thinkers emphasize that naturalistic explanations often fail to address the full scope of human experience.

Modular Evolution and Scientific Counterarguments

Many systems once thought to be irreducibly complex are now considered to be modular. Parts may have evolved for other functions and were later co-opted. Redundancy and scaffolding allow partial functionality. Evolution often repurposes existing components—a process called exaptation.

For example, the bacterial flagellum shares components with the Type III secretion system, suggesting it evolved from simpler machinery. These findings challenge the assumption that complexity must arise all at once and instead may support a view of evolutionary innovation through recombination and repurposing.

Could this also be seen as evidence of a common designer?

Case Study: John A. Roebling (1806–1869)

John A. Roebling was a German-born American civil engineer best known for pioneering suspension bridge design in the United States. Educated at the Bauakademie in Berlin, Roebling immigrated to Pennsylvania in 1831, where he later developed durable wire rope technology that revolutionized bridge construction (Barber et al., 1908).

1024px-Rail_Road_Suspension_Bridge_Near_Niagara_Falls_v2

Brooklyn_Bridge_ManhattanBy Suiseiseki - Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0, httpscommons.wikimedia.orgwindex.phpcurid=7648443

His most famous work is the Brooklyn Bridge, completed posthumously by his son, Washington Roebling, and daughter-in-law, Emily Warren Roebling. Roebling also designed the John A. Roebling Suspension Bridge in Cincinnati and the Niagara Falls Suspension Bridge, both of which served as engineering precursors to the Brooklyn Bridge.

Cincinnati_Skyline_and_Roebling_Bridge_from_Riverfront_Commons,_Covington,_KY_-_51400457956

Roebling’s legacy lies in his innovative use of wire cables, his integration of aesthetics with structural integrity, and his influence on American infrastructure. His designs combined mathematical precision with visionary scale, setting new standards for 19th-century civil engineering (Barber et al., 1908).

Interestingly, this principle of design continuity—reusing and refining structural elements across projects—mirrors a broader philosophical analogy. In biology, for example, the bacterial flagellum shares components with the Type III secretion system, which may suggest it evolved from simpler machinery. These findings challenge the assumption that complexity must arise all at once and instead support a view of evolutionary innovation through recombination and repurposing. Yet one could also interpret this repurposing as evidence of a common designer—just as an architect or engineer, like Roebling, often incorporates design elements from previous projects into new ones, whether for aesthetic coherence or functional efficiency.

This analogy invites reflection on whether patterns of reuse in nature point to evolutionary pragmatism or intentional craftsmanship. Roebling’s bridges, with their recurring motifs and structural logic, offer a tangible example of how design element proliferation may point to a common designer.

Strengths of the “Evolve This!” Argument

Despite scientific critiques, this apologetic style has notable strengths.

It taps into the awe people feel when contemplating nature’s complexity. It is accessible, memorable, and rhetorically powerful—especially in debates or evangelistic settings.

It affirms the belief that life has purpose, intent, and value—core tenets of Christian theology.

It forces skeptics to confront metaphysical questions: Why is there something rather than nothing? Why does life seem so ordered?

Image by Bing Image Creator

Limitations and Risks

However, “Evolve This!” has significant limitations.

It often oversimplifies evolutionary theory, ignoring the large body of evidence assumed to support gradual development.

Genetic similarities: Humans and chimpanzees are said to share approximately 98–99% of their DNA, which is said to support a common ancestor and gradual divergence (Prüfer et al., 2012).

Developmental biology: Hox genes, which control body plan development, are conserved across species and seem to show gradual modifications over time (Ferrier, 2011).

Biogeography: Darwin’s finches evolved distinct beak shapes and sizes on the Galápagos Islands, adapting gradually to different ecological niches (Grant, 1981).

It presents a problematic dichotomy: either evolution explains everything, or God did it. But many Christians embrace theistic evolution, seeing God as the author of natural processes.

It risks invoking divine action wherever science lacks a complete explanation. This approach can backfire as scientific understanding progresses.

John Gould (14.Sep.1804 - 3.Feb.1881) - From "Voyage of the Beagle" as found on https://darwinonline.org.uk/converted/published/1845_Beagle_F14/1845_Beagle_F14_fig07.jpg]; also online through Biodiversity Heritage Library at https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/2010582.

Image by Bing Image Creator

Young Earth Creationism (YEC)

Young Earth Creationism (YEC) posits that the Earth and all life were created by God over six literal days, roughly 6,000 to 10,000 years ago, based on a strict interpretation of the Genesis account. This view rejects much of mainstream science, particularly evolutionary biology and radiometric dating, and instead interprets geological and biological data through a biblical lens. YEC proponents argue that the global flood described in Genesis explains the fossil record and geological formations, asserting that rapid burial during this event accounts for the presence of fossils in sedimentary layers (Austin et al., 2012). They maintain that scientific evidence can be harmonized with Scripture when interpreted within a creationist framework. This seems like fighting an uphill battle against the scientific community.

In contrast, theistic evolution integrates evolutionary science with belief in divine creation. It accepts the scientific consensus on the age of the Earth and the process of evolution, viewing these as mechanisms through which God brought about life. Theistic evolutionists argue that the fossil record, genetic evidence, and geological data support a gradual development of life over billions of years. This perspective does not require a literal reading of Genesis and instead sees the biblical creation narrative as theological rather than scientific. Scholars such as Reynolds and Nelson (2012) note that theistic evolution avoids the scientific conflicts inherent in YEC by embracing methodological naturalism while retaining theological commitments.

The fossil record is a central point of debate between these views. Theistic evolutionists interpret it as strong evidence for common descent and evolutionary transitions, citing examples like Tiktaalik and Archaeopteryx. YEC advocates, however, argue that the fossil record shows sudden appearances of fully formed organisms, particularly during the Cambrian Explosion, which they claim contradicts evolutionary expectations. They also point to the lack of undisputed transitional fossils and the presence of soft tissue in some specimens as challenges to deep time and gradual evolution (Davidson & Wolgemuth, 2012). While mainstream science sees the fossil record as consistent with evolutionary theory, YEC interprets it as evidence of a catastrophic global flood and rapid burial.

Image By Bing Image Creator

Alternative Apologetic Strategies

To build a more robust apologetic, Christian thinkers may turn to other approaches.

Classical apologetics uses logical arguments like the cosmological, teleological, and moral arguments, emphasizing coherence and philosophical rigor.

Evidential apologetics focuses on historical evidence—such as the resurrection and biblical reliability—appealing to empirical data and eyewitness testimony.

Reformed epistemology, developed by Alvin Plantinga, argues that belief in God can be properly basic—rational without evidence—and emphasizes internal experience and the work of the Holy Spirit.

Dialogical apologetics prioritizes respectful conversation over confrontation, building bridges with skeptics by acknowledging complexity and uncertainty.

Toward a Thoughtful Apologetic

Rather than relying on rhetorical challenges, Christian apologetics can thrive by embracing intellectual humility, engaging with scientific insights, and affirming faith and reason as complementary. This does not mean abandoning design arguments—it means refining them to reflect both theological depth and scientific nuance.

Faith, Reason, and the Limits of Rhetoric

The “Evolve This!” apologetic style is bold, provocative, and emotionally resonant. It challenges skeptics to confront the limits of naturalism and consider the possibility of design, purpose, and transcendence. But its rhetorical power must be matched by philosophical depth and scientific literacy.

As Christian thinkers continue to engage a skeptical world, they must move beyond slogans and embrace the full richness of apologetics—one that honors both the mind and the heart, both reason and revelation.

12 Key Points

The “Evolve This!” Challenge

-Young Earth Creationism and Theistic Evolution represent fundamentally different epistemological commitments—YEC prioritizes biblical literalism and interprets scientific data through a flood geology lens. At the same time, theistic evolution integrates mainstream scientific consensus with theological belief in divine providence, viewing evolutionary processes as compatible with God's creative intent.
The fossil record serves as a critical battleground for origins debates—YEC interprets abrupt fossil appearances and soft tissue preservation as evidence for rapid burial during a global flood. In contrast, theistic evolutionists cite transitional fossils like Tiktaalik and Archaeopteryx as empirical support for gradual biological change and common descent over deep time.
– A rhetorical apologetic method that questions whether blind, unguided processes like mutation and natural selection can produce highly complex systems such as the eye, bacterial flagellum, or consciousness.

Irreducible Complexity

– Popularized by Michael Behe (Darwin’s Black Box, 1996), it argues that some biological systems cannot function if any part is removed, making gradual evolution seem implausible.

Scientific Response to Eye Evolution

– Evolutionary models (e.g., Nilsson & Pelger, 1994) demonstrate how eyes could evolve incrementally from light-sensitive cells to complex, camera-like organs within plausible evolutionary timeframes.

Comparative Anatomy Evidence

– Living organisms display a spectrum of eye complexity, from flatworms’ photoreceptors to insect compound eyes and vertebrate camera eyes, supporting gradual evolution rather than sudden creation.

Exaptation and Modularity

– Many “irreducibly complex” systems can be explained by exaptation (repurposing existing structures) and modularity (biological components evolving independently and later combining).

Example: Bacterial Flagellum

Shares components with the Type III secretion system, suggesting evolutionary repurposing rather than sudden creation. It could also imply a common designer.

Roebling Analogy

– The reuse of design elements in John A. Roebling’s suspension bridges illustrates how repurposing in engineering can serve as a metaphor—interpreted either as evolutionary pragmatism or evidence of a common designer.

Philosophical and Theological Implications

– The challenge raises more profound questions: Can randomness and necessity produce meaning and purpose? Critics warn against “God-of-the-gaps” arguments that invoke divine action where science has not yet explained.

Theistic Evolution as a Middle Way

– Figures like Francis Collins argue that evolution is compatible with Christian faith, with God working through natural processes to achieve His purposes.

Toward a Refined Apologetic

– The article suggests moving beyond rhetorical challenges to an apologetic strategy that blends faith and reason, engages science respectfully, and emphasizes intellectual humility alongside theological depth.

Discussion Questions & Answers

1. Why does YEC reject deep-time interpretations of the fossil record?

YEC holds that most fossils were formed during Noah’s Flood, not over millions of years. Rapid burial, mixed fossil layers, and soft tissue preservation are seen as evidence of catastrophic processes, not gradual evolution.

1. How does YEC link Earth’s age to biblical authority?

YEC affirms a ~6,000-10,000-year-old Earth based on a literal Genesis chronology. This supports doctrines like a historical Adam, original sin, and the need for redemption.

1. What is meant by “irreducible complexity”? Irreducible complexity refers to systems that allegedly cannot function if any part is removed, implying they could not have evolved gradually through small, beneficial steps (Behe, 1996).
2. How do evolutionary biologists respond to the claim that the eye is irreducibly complex? They propose models showing incremental development—from light-sensitive cells to complex camera-like eyes—supported by comparative anatomy and simulations (Nilsson & Pelger, 1994).
3. What is exaptation, and how does it challenge the irreducible complexity argument? Exaptation is the evolutionary process by which existing structures are repurposed for new functions (Gould & Vrba, 1982). It shows that complex systems may evolve from simpler, functional precursors.
4. Why is Nilsson & Pelger’s eye model significant? It mathematically demonstrates that a functional eye could evolve in under 500,000 years, supporting the plausibility of gradual evolution (Nilsson & Pelger, 1994).
5. What role does modularity play in evolutionary explanations of complexity? Modularity suggests biological systems are composed of interchangeable parts that can evolve independently and be co-opted into new systems (Kirschner & Gerhart, 2005).
6. Why is the “Evolve This!” challenge more than a scientific question? It raises metaphysical concerns about whether randomness and necessity can produce meaning, purpose, and intentionality—questions science alone cannot answer (Nagel, 2012).
7. How does Alvin Plantinga critique naturalism using the concept of rationality? He argues that if our cognitive faculties are the product of unguided evolution, we have no reason to trust them—undermining the reliability of reason itself (Plantinga, 2011).
8. What is the “God-of-the-gaps” critique, and how does it apply here? It warns against invoking divine action to explain gaps in scientific knowledge, which may shrink as science progresses (McGrath, 2009).
9. Can belief in design coexist with acceptance of evolutionary theory? Yes. Theistic evolution posits that God works through evolutionary processes, integrating divine purpose with scientific mechanisms (Collins, 2006).
10. How does the argument from design differ from the argument from irreducible complexity? Design arguments infer intentionality from order and purpose broadly, while irreducible complexity focuses on specific systems that allegedly defy gradual evolution (Dembski, 1998).
11. What theological risks arise from rejecting all evolutionary theory? It may isolate Christian thought from scientific discourse, reduce credibility in public engagement, and risk conflating biblical interpretation with scientific models (Giberson & Collins, 2011).
12. How does Psalm 19 support a design-oriented apologetic? It declares that “the heavens declare the glory of God,” affirming that creation reflects divine craftsmanship and invites theological reflection (Psalm 19:1, ESV).
13. What is the value of epistemic humility in apologetics? It acknowledges the limits of human understanding, fosters respectful dialogue, and avoids overconfidence in either theological or scientific claims (Murray, 2004).
14. How does dialogical apologetics differ from confrontational styles like “Evolve This!”? It prioritizes respectful conversation, mutual understanding, and complexity over rhetorical victory (Keller, 2008).
15. Why is interpretive fairness essential in public apologetics? It models intellectual integrity, avoids misrepresenting opposing views, and strengthens the credibility of Christian witness (McGrath, 2012).
16. What makes “Evolve This!” rhetorically powerful? Its simplicity, emotional appeal, and intuitive resonance make it memorable and effective in debates, especially when confronting scientific reductionism (Craig, 2008).
17. What are the limitations of using rhetorical challenges in apologetics? They may oversimplify complex issues, provoke defensiveness, and fail to engage deeper philosophical or theological concerns (Sire, 2009).
18. How can apologists refine design arguments for modern audiences? By integrating scientific insights, avoiding binary thinking, and emphasizing coherence between faith and reason (Lennox, 2011).
19. What role does historical evidence play in evidential apologetics? It supports Christian claims through empirical data—such as the resurrection, manuscript reliability, and archaeological findings (Habermas & Licona, 2004).
20. How can apologetics affirm both reason and revelation? By showing that faith is not irrational but grounded in evidence, logic, and spiritual experience—reflecting a holistic view of truth (Moreland, 2009).

Carrying the Discussion Forward: Open-Ended Questions (for deeper engagement)

In what ways might a Young Earth framework shape Christian responses to emerging technologies like AI, especially regarding human uniqueness and the imago Dei?
How can YEC proponents foster respectful, reproducible dialogue with Christians who affirm old Earth or evolutionary models without compromising biblical convictions?
In what ways might the concept of irreducible complexity reflect theological intuitions about divine craftsmanship, and where might it risk overstating the case?
How can Christian apologists responsibly engage with scientific models like Nilsson & Pelger’s without conflating simulation with empirical proof?
What philosophical assumptions underlie the claim that randomness cannot produce meaning, and how might those assumptions be challenged or defended?
How does the diversity of eye structures across species inform or complicate the argument for design?
What are the theological implications of accepting modular evolution as a mechanism for biological complexity?
How might the “Evolve This!” challenge be reframed to invite dialogue rather than provoke confrontation?
In what ways does the concept of exaptation mirror theological ideas of redemption, repurposing, or providence?
How can apologists distinguish between rhetorical effectiveness and epistemic responsibility when presenting design arguments?
What role should Scripture play in shaping our understanding of natural processes and biological origins?
What are the risks and rewards of integrating theistic evolution into public apologetics platforms?
How can Christian thinkers avoid the God-of-the-gaps fallacy while still affirming divine agency in creation?
In what ways does the awe inspired by biological complexity point toward transcendence, and how can this be communicated without resorting to sentimentality?
How might dialogical apologetics reshape the way Christians engage with skeptics in scientific fields?
What criteria should be used to evaluate whether a biological system truly qualifies as irreducibly complex?
How does the concept of “properly basic beliefs” challenge the evidentialist demand for empirical proof in apologetics?
What historical or cultural factors have shaped the popularity of the “Evolve This!” style of argumentation?
How can apologetics platforms foster interdisciplinary literacy among lay audiences without diluting theological depth?
In what ways might the design argument evolve (pun intended) in response to emerging technologies like synthetic biology or AI?

References

Apologetics, Theology, and Philosophy

· Adams, R. M. (1999). Finite and infinite goods: A framework for ethics. Oxford University Press.

· Behe, M. J. (1996). Darwin’s black box: The biochemical challenge to evolution. Free Press.

· Collins, F. S. (2006). The language of God: A scientist presents evidence for belief. Free Press.

· Craig, W. L. (2008). Reasonable faith: Christian truth and apologetics (3rd ed.). Crossway.

· Dembski, W. A. (1998). The design inference: Eliminating chance through small probabilities. Cambridge University Press.

· Giberson, K. W., & Collins, F. S. (2011). The language of science and faith: Straight answers to genuine questions. IVP Academic.

· Habermas, G. R., & Licona, M. R. (2004). The case for the resurrection of Jesus. Kregel Publications.

· Keller, T. (2008). The reason for God: Belief in an age of skepticism. Dutton.

· Lennox, J. C. (2011). God and Stephen Hawking: Whose design is it anyway? Lion Books.

· McGrath, A. E. (2009). A fine-tuned universe: The quest for God in science and theology. Westminster John Knox Press.

· McGrath, A. E. (2012). Mere apologetics: How to help seekers and skeptics find faith. Baker Books.

· Moreland, J. P. (2009). The God Question: An Invitation to a Life of Meaning. Harvest House Publishers.

· Plantinga, A. (2000). Warranted Christian belief. Oxford University Press.

· Turek, F. (2014). Stealing from God: Why atheists need God to make their case. Tyndale House Publishers.

Science, Evolution, and Ethics

· Dawkins, R. (2006). The God delusion. Houghton Mifflin.

· de Waal, F. (2006). Primates and philosophers: How morality evolved. Princeton University Press.

· Gould, S. J., & Vrba, E. S. (1982). Exaptation—a missing term in the science of form. Paleobiology, 8(1), 4–15.

· Harris, S. (2010). The moral landscape: How science can determine human values. Free Press.

· Kirschner, M. W., & Gerhart, J. C. (2005). The plausibility of life: Resolving Darwin’s dilemma. Yale University Press.

· Nilsson, D.-E., & Pelger, S. (1994). A pessimistic estimate of the time required for an eye to evolve. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 256(1345), 53–58. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.1994.0048

· Singer, P. (2011). The expanding circle: Ethics, evolution, and moral progress. Princeton University Press.

Creation, Evolution, and Origins Debate

· Austin, S., Davidson, G., & Wolgemuth, K. (2012). Young Earth–Old Earth: Debating the Geological Evidence. Christian Research Journal, 35(1).

· Montgomery, D. R. (2012). The evolution of creationism. GSA Today, 22(11), 4–9.

· Nelson, P., & Reynolds, J. M. (2012). Three Views on Creation and Evolution. Discovery Institute.

Evolutionary Biology and Genomics

· Ferrier, D. E. K. (2011). Hox and ParaHox genes in evolution, development and genomics. Genomics, Proteomics & Bioinformatics, 9(3), 63–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1672-0229(11)60009-0

· Grant, P. R. (1981). Speciation and the adaptive radiation of Darwin's finches. American Scientist, 69(6), 653–663.

· MacFadden, B. J. (1988). Horses, the fossil record, and evolution. In M. K. Hecht et al. (Eds.), Evolutionary Biology (Vol. 22, pp. 131–158). Plenum Press.

· Prüfer, K., et al. (2012). The bonobo genome compared with the chimpanzee and human genomes. Nature, 486(7404), 527–531. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature11128

· Thewissen, J. G. M., & Bajpai, S. (2001). Whale origins as a poster child for macroevolution. Evolution: Education and Outreach, 2, 272–288.

Historical and Metaphorical Reference

· Barber, A. N., Stokes, E. C., Estabrook, H. D., & Woodrow Wilson Collection. (1908). John A. Roebling; an account of the ceremonies at the unveiling of a monument to his memory. Library of Congress. https://www.loc.gov/item/08034273/

Strengths & Weaknesses of This Article Noted by the Three QCC Models

Content Control Model 1

Strengths

Accurate and well-cited across disciplines.

Balanced treatment of opposing views.

Original insights (Roebling analogy, dialogical apologetics).

Strong structure: challenge → scientific response → theological implications → apologetic refinement.

Weaknesses

Occasional redundancy in points (exaptation/modularity repeated).

Some scientific discussions are summarized at a surface level (fossil record debates could use more specific data).

Slight apologetic bias, though not unfair.

Final Note: Overall, this article demonstrates a strong balance of factual accuracy, rhetorical clarity, and interpretive fairness. It successfully engages both scientific and theological perspectives while avoiding oversimplification. The originality of analogies (e.g., Roebling bridges) adds freshness to the discussion, and the careful inclusion of diverse sources strengthens credibility. While some sections could expand scientific detail and reduce repetition, the piece remains a highly effective, well-supported exploration of complexity and its apologetic significance.

Content Control Model 2

Strengths

Clear Thesis: Clearly articulates the "Evolve This!" argument, exploring complexity in science and theology

Balanced Perspectives: Fairly presents YEC, theistic evolution, and evolutionary biology, fostering credibility

Strong Evidence: Uses credible sources (e.g., Nilsson & Pelger, 1994; Collins, 2006) to support claims (Pages 10–12).

Rhetorical Appeal: "Evolve This!" and Roebling analogy engage readers emotionally and intellectually (Pages 1, 3).

Interdisciplinary Relevance (10): Integrates science, theology, and philosophy, with thought-provoking questions (Pages 6, 9).

Intellectual Humility: Advocates nuanced apologetics, avoiding binary thinking (Pages 5–6).

Weaknesses

Minor Oversimplification: DNA similarity claim (98–99%, Page 4) is slightly outdated, lacking nuance on genomic debates.

Limited Philosophical Depth: Plantinga’s argument and God-of-the-gaps critique are underdeveloped (Pages 7–8).

Roebling Analogy Integration: Creative but slightly abrupt, needing smoother connection to biological arguments (Page 3).

Selective Evidence: Relies on single sources for some claims (e.g., Nilsson & Pelger, Page 1), limiting robustness.

Final Note: The article "Evolve This! and the Challenge of Complexity: Rhetoric, Science, and Theology in Dialogue" is a high-quality, interdisciplinary exploration of the "Evolve This!" apologetic, effectively balancing scientific, theological, and philosophical perspectives with a clear thesis and credible sources. Its rhetorical appeal and original analogies, like the Roebling comparison, engage readers, while its call for intellectual humility strengthens its credibility. However, minor simplifications (e.g., DNA similarity) and underdeveloped philosophical analyses slightly limit its depth. Overall, it is a thoughtful, fair, and relevant contribution to the dialogue on complexity and design, well-suited for fostering reflection among diverse audiences.

Content Control Model 3

Strengths

Interdisciplinary Integration

Seamlessly weaves together theology, philosophy, science, and rhetorical analysis.

Bridges apologetic styles with epistemological nuance, inviting both lay and academic engagement.

Methodological Transparency

Includes disclaimers (e.g., Nilsson & Pelger) that clarify simulation vs. empirical data.

Demonstrates epistemic humility and avoids overstatement—especially in scientific critique.

Original Analogical Framing

The Roebling bridge analogy offers a fresh metaphor for design continuity and modularity.

Enhances accessibility while preserving philosophical depth.

Balanced Treatment of Origins Models

Fairly represents YEC, theistic evolution, and mainstream science without caricature.

Encourages respectful dialogue across theological and scientific divides.

Citation Precision and Scholarly Rigor

APA formatting is meticulous; sources span reputable journals, books, and historical archives.

Demonstrates reproducibility and academic credibility.

Constructive Apologetic Vision

Moves beyond rhetorical confrontation to advocate dialogical, intellectually humble engagement.

Offers alternative apologetic strategies (classical, evidential, reformed epistemology).

Weaknesses (Opportunities for Refinement)

Simulation vs. Empirical Evidence

Though addressed via disclaimer, some readers may still conflate plausibility models with historical data. A brief sidebar or footnote comparison could reinforce the distinction.

Limited Engagement with Counterexamples

While Tiktaalik and Archaeopteryx are mentioned, deeper engagement with transitional fossil debates (e.g., whale evolution, hominin lineage) could enrich the critique.

Philosophical Depth on Randomness and Meaning

The metaphysical challenge to naturalism is introduced but could benefit from expanded treatment—e.g., engaging Nagel’s teleological realism or Adams’ moral framework more directly.

YEC Framing as “Uphill Battle”

The phrase risks sounding dismissive. Reframing it as “epistemically contested” or “methodologically divergent” might preserve fairness while acknowledging scientific tensions.

Audience Calibration Some sections (e.g., Plantinga’s argument against naturalism) assume philosophical literacy. A brief glossary or sidebar could aid lay readers without diluting rigor.

Model 2 Additional Note: The article "Evolve This! and the Challenge of Complexity: Rhetoric, Science, and Theology in Dialogue" is written at a college-level or advanced undergraduate to early graduate-level audience. Below is a concise analysis of the writing level based on its content, style, and intended audience:

Indicators of Writing Level

Content Complexity:
- The article engages with sophisticated concepts such as irreducible complexity, exaptation, modularity, and theistic evolution (Pages 1–2, 6–7). It assumes familiarity with evolutionary biology (e.g., Nilsson & Pelger, 1994), theological debates (e.g., YEC vs. theistic evolution), and philosophical arguments (e.g., Plantinga’s critique of naturalism, Page 8).
- Discussion questions (Page 9) require interdisciplinary reasoning, touching on theology (imago Dei), science (AI, synthetic biology), and philosophy, indicating an expectation of critical thinking typical of higher education.
Vocabulary and Style:
- The vocabulary includes technical terms like "irreducible complexity," "exaptation," "modularity," and "methodological naturalism" (Pages 1–2, 4), which are common in academic discourse but may challenge readers without a background in biology or theology.
- The writing is formal yet accessible, with clear explanations of complex ideas (e.g., eye evolution, Page 1) and analogies (e.g., Roebling’s bridges, Page 3), making it suitable for advanced undergraduates or early graduate students who have some foundational knowledge.
Source Usage:
- The article cites peer-reviewed scientific journals (e.g., Nature, Proceedings of the Royal Society), academic books (e.g., Collins, 2006; Plantinga, 2000), and historical references (Pages 10–12). This level of citation rigor aligns with college-level research papers or introductory graduate work.
- The expectation that readers can evaluate sources (e.g., distinguishing simulations from empirical data, Page 2) suggests a scholarly audience.
Argument Structure:
- The logical flow, from introducing the "Evolve This!" challenge to critiquing its limitations and proposing alternative apologetics (Pages 1–6), requires analytical skills typical of college-level coursework. The inclusion of 20 discussion questions (Pages 7–9) further assumes readers can engage in nuanced, open-ended analysis.

Intended Audience

The article is likely aimed at students, scholars, or educated lay readers interested in the science-theology interface, such as those in theology, philosophy, or biology courses at a university level. It assumes some familiarity with scientific concepts (e.g., evolution, genetics) and theological frameworks (e.g., YEC, theistic evolution), but it explains these concepts clearly enough for readers with a general academic background.

Conclusion

The article is written at a college-level (advanced undergraduate to early graduate) due to its sophisticated concepts, technical vocabulary, academic sources, and expectation of critical engagement. It is accessible to motivated readers with some background in science or theology but is best suited for those accustomed to scholarly discourse in higher education settings.