As introduced in my previous post, I am reviewing the new BBC ‘Evolution’ series, focusing mainly on: (1) its scientific accuracy, and (2) how well it fulfils the public service obligations of the BBC.
As I watched the series, I was disappointed that Chris Packham’s opening words make clear that his aim goes far beyond simply conveying the current state of the scientific field of evolutionary biology. He immediately reaches beyond that, into the realm of philosophy and even theology.
He says:
Across our natural world, life has taken on countless forms: wondrous, strange and endlessly diverse. It’s easy to imagine that all of this is, like, somehow preordained, that it’s been made, a world of balance and purpose. But the truth…The truth is much wilder. This is a world of survivors… behind it all is the unstoppable force of evolution.
Rather than simply describing scientific theory and evidence, Packham is telling us what people should believe about the big questions of life. For him, theists, who consider the evidence to suggest that God has planned and made the natural world are simply imagining things. In contrast, the atheist Chris Packham knows the truth: evolution did it, and evolution precludes a Maker.
As mentioned in my previous post, a third of the British public believe that God played a role in the origin of the natural world, either by guiding evolution towards a planned goal, or by direct creation. One might therefore expect the BBC to take theism seriously in discussing our origins, discussing the evidence for and against in an even-handed way.
Unfortunately, Packham does not do this. He draws a simple dichotomy between evolution and divine action which permeates the series. Later in Episode 1, he says:
To understand the elephant, the largest land animal alive today, you have to understand evolution itself. There was no blueprint, no grand design. Evolution. It’s a process shaped by powerful invisible drivers. Like hunger, conflict, and even catastrophe.
In Episode 3 he makes the same point again, this time about our ear bones:
No designer was involved in making these bones, which are currently floating in your head allowing you to hear what I’m saying. All that was needed was life’s relentless drive to find food.
For many theists, the human mind is particularly strong evidence of the divine, but Packham is equally dismissive of this in Episode 4:
But here’s one thing that we know for certain: our brains, our minds simply wouldn’t exist without the power of evolution. That blind journey of change, of innovation, of exquisite beauty.
In Episode 5 he proclaims bluntly:
we weren’t made
Throughout the series, Packham clearly expresses the view that evolution is responsible for every aspect of our origins and it is blind, purposeless and unguided. For him, it is the opposite of design. It precludes any involvement from God.
This view is not supported by any of the scientific evidence that he describes in the series. It is a statement of philosophical presuppositions, not of scientific conclusions. It is Packham’s personal belief as an atheist.
It is up to Packham if he decided to be an atheist or not. But it is not accurate, impartial, and fair for him to dogmatically assert this view to a BBC audience without at least taking the alternative seriously. He does not – he simply rules it out.
It is ironic therefore, that, throughout the series, Packham repeatedly uses the language of purpose and agency.
It is ironic therefore, that, throughout the series, Packham repeatedly uses the language of purpose and agency. Despite his presumptive dismissal of any role for God in the origin of life and its diversity, he frequently speaks of evolution as if it were an intelligent agent directing change.
According to Packham, evolution “comes up with creatures” (Episode 1), and is sometimes “solving a problem of its own making” (E1), sex is “invented” (Episode 2), evolution makes “innovations” (Episode 3), life gets “a hardware upgrade” (Episode 4).
He finds he cannot stop himself from using the language of purposeful progress: “The neocortex was an extraordinary mammalian innovation” (Episode 4), “One small step for this tiny blob, one giant leap for animal kind” (Episode 5), “pioneering animals to take a leap into the unknown” (Episode 5) “As soon as those ancient pacemakers began to pulse, they instigated a revolution.”
Despite denying that there is a God who comes up with things, solves problems, invents things, innovates and upgrades, Packham still uses such language. He cannot use it in reference to God, so he used it in reference to evolution. But by his own definition, evolution cannot do these things: it is “blind”.
You might respond that Packham is just using convenient figures of speech to make evolution understandable to a lay audience. Even if that were the case, he would be failing his audience in failing to properly explain what blind evolution is. But I think that the truth runs deeper than that.
The natural world has such a strong appearance of design and purpose, and the fossil record shows such clear evidence of progress and direction, that in describing them Packham cannot stop himself using such language. In doing so he contradicts his stated views on a lack of design in nature.
Packham’s message becomes incoherent
Packham’s message becomes incoherent because there is a disjunction between the purposeless atheist creed he professes to believe and the purposeful realities of the world around him.
In addition, Packham’s confidence that God could not have been involved in the origin of life and its diversity is surely brought into question by his accurate but (too) occasional admissions that there are many unknowns in evolution. In Episode 1 he says:
Evolution’s unpredictable and so grand we’re still really figuring out how it works
But how can we preclude God if our understanding of evolution is incomplete? How can we be sure God has not invisibly guided, or even directly intervened with miracles? We cannot.
When it comes to the human mind, Packham admits:
It’s for a very good reason that we think of our brains as being the most complex objects in the known universe, and they’re still surrounded by an aura of mystery, of magic.
I find it, frankly, baffling that he feels able to follow this immediately with the claim:
But here’s one thing that we know for certain: our brains, our minds simply wouldn’t exist without the power of evolution. That blind journey of change, of innovation, of exquisite beauty.
How can we know for certain how the human mind came to be if there is still a mystery around it? How can we be sure that divine action can be excluded? Clearly, we cannot.
It is unfortunate that Packham has such a strong atheistic agenda, which is allowed to permeate the series. Despite raising philosophical issues, he treats them superficially. His beliefs are stated as if facts, in a manner that does not even attempt to wrestle with the evidence that theists see in the natural world for God’s existence. I find this disappointing. It detracts from the science and natural history in the series, and it does not reflect, represent and serve the diverse communities of the United Kingdom.
Despite raising philosophical issues, he treats them superficially.
In my next post, I will review what he says about LUCA.
Featured image: Still from BBC Evolution series 2026