VIEWPOINTS PAGE OF WAS DARWIN RIGHT
|
BOOKS, DVD's, MP3 PLAYERS AND MORE
.....
T-SHIRTS, CAPS AND
MORE..... |
The
debate is older than Darwin's time though. Thales of Miletus
(640 to 546 B.C., picture left) over 2000 years ago proposed that water developed into other
elements and these elements developed into plants, then into simple animals and
finally into more complex animals like man (Thompson, 1981).
At a similar time, Chrysippus (c.280 to c.207 B.C., picture right) stated that "If there is anything in nature which the human mind, which human intelligence, energy and power could not create, then the creator of such things must be a being superior to man. But the heavenly bodies in their orbits could not be created by man. They must therefore be created by a being greater than man ……. Only an arrogant fool would imagine that there was nothing in the whole world greater than himself. Therefore there must be something greater than man. And that something must be God."
Is it
all about the reason of science versus the Faith of religion?
The quotes on the Home page of this site would suggest it is not all about a clash between science and Faith, as shown below:-
"The percentage of people in the country (USA) who accept the idea of evolution has declined from 45 in 1985 to 40 in 2005. Meanwhile the fraction of Americans unsure about evolution has soared from 7 per cent in 1985 to 21 per cent last year." Science 2006, vol. 313 p765.
BBC news, January 26th 2006. "Just under half of Britons accept the theory of evolution as the best description for the development of life," according to a recent MORI opinion poll. "Furthermore, more than 40% of those questioned believe that creationism or intelligent design (ID) should be taught in school science lessons" - see Britons unconvinced on evolution
John Lennox, author of the book God's Undertaker: Has Science Buried God suggests it about a clash of major World views rather than clash between science and Faith.
However, the debate does tend
to polarise opinions, and to begin to understand why the debate continues, it is
helpful to look at the polarised views. On this page, the different views that
Christians can hold will also be briefly examined.
At the other end of the spectrum, the American creationists group Answers in Genesis (and many other such groups) defend a literal six day creation and believe that widespread acceptance of the theory of evolution undermines the authority of scripture and contributes to moral decay in the West (see links below for several articles). However, it should be noted that Answers in Genesis accept that one can be a Christian and believe in evolution, see article Is it possible to be a Christian and an Evolutionist?
Many
Christians hold views somewhere between these two poles. Theistic
evolution (God working through evolution), progressive
creation (God creating in stages over a long period of time),
intelligent
design (an unspecified intelligent designer with no set time span)
and the gap
theory (a gap of indeterminate time between the first two verses of
Genesis 1) are all views that fit somewhere between the two poles.
There
are many issues that Christians disagree on, such as women priests, the
charismatic movement, predestination, the
second coming etc. Most of these
differences of opinion would not be considered major by many people. However,
some truths to some people are worth defending, and this surely contributes to
the ongoing debate on origins? 
Many Christians would argue that it is in the first
three chapters of Genesis
that they learn not only of their need for a Savior or redeemer in the form of Jesus
Christ, but also about the institute
of marriage, that they are made in the image of God and as such have a special
dignity and worth, as well God creating animals
that produce after their “kind” (stated ten times in the King James version),
and that such literal truth should not be reduced to myth or allegory.
The two extreme views then are that:-
(i) Man arose though the process of evolution by random chance events, and God is no more than a delusion.
(ii) God literally created Adam and Eve, the parents of all humanity, who somehow fell out of relationship with God, resulting in all of humanity needing a Savior or redeemer in the form of Jesus Christ.
However, John
Stott, the well known Christian author stated that, “It seems perfectly possible to reconcile the
historicity of Adam with at
least some (theistic) evolutionary theory. Many biblical Christians in fact do
so, believing them to be not entirely incompatible. To assert the historicity of
an original pair who sinned through disobedience is one thing; it is quite
another to deny all evolution and to assert that separate and special creation
of everything both subhuman creatures and
Although not all Christians would share John Stott’s view as above, it seems to present a way of reconciling theistic evolution and the Christian faith. However, such a view is not without its problems. Would a world that had been evolving for millions or years, presumably full of mutation, disease and death, really be the good Creation described in Genesis?
But then what of literal
creation, does that not have its issues like the fossil
records, starlight
from distant planets, radiometric
dating and the like?
In
the last 20 years or so, there have been several books written by well qualified
scientists and academics that de-bunk the theory of evolution. Authors like
Professor Michael
Behe, Dr
Michael Denton,
Professor Gary Parker, Professor
Paul Back (former Rhodes scholar) to name just a few. Whilst not all of
these authors believe in a literal six day creation, they all show that the
science does not irrevocable show molecules to man evolution.
Some major
sticking points are:-
No
scientific explanation of how the first
living cells arose, natural
selection only selects genes already present, the process
of meiosis (shuffling around of DNA
during formation of sex cells) largely explains variation within species (such a
process was unknown of in Darwin’s day), most evidence shows that mutations
disrupt rather than enhance gene function, there is no evidence for mutations
giving rise to more complex genes and several leading paleontologists state
that there are gaps in the fossil records
between all the major groups of organisms.
Whilst
Dawkins and others may still suggest the case for Darwinian evolution is
watertight, this viewpoint is clearly not held
by all scientists, and to dismiss all creationists as "lunatic" seems
to speak more of the person making such a
pronouncement than those who would challenge the theory of evolution.
Will scientists ever understand how Jesus turned water into wine, fed the 5,000, raised the dead or healed lepers? If one accepts that such things are true, the mechanisms by which they occur remain a mystery. In a similar way, despite hundreds of years of scientific investigation, the origin of life on earth remains a mystery to us, even if we do understand the way diversity occurs within species.
Perhaps God allows such mysteries to remain to test and strengthen faith of believers? The scientific skeptic may devote his or her life to trying to come up with some naturalistic explanation of how Jesus turned water into wine. Perhaps believers should just appreciate and enjoy the vintage?
PLEASE HELP THIS SITE GET KNOWN. IF YOU HAVE APPRECIATED THE SITE, THEN PLEASE E-MAIL ITS ADDRESS (WWW.WASDARWINRIGHT.NET) AND BRIEF DETAILS TO THOSE IN YOUR E-MAIL ADDRESS BOOK. THANK-YOU.
