Some Very Brief Thoughts on Design/Evolution
I have, oh, like forty minutes until I need to start cooking dinner; Mike is taking a nap, S is still at work. But browsing the online news and seeing this article made me want to throw something up here. Evolution and design are two things I've been thinking about lately. I wish I had more time to do this enormous topic justice now, but maybe another time. Besides, I'm truly a newbie.
In the past I've simply said I don't care. I knew the earth was not 10,000 years old; the geologic record seems plain on this. Certainly the universe is older; we receive light from very distant objects. I've read enough myth to recognize one in the genesis accounts. These are ancient Sumerian creation stories. In fact, Elohim, translated God, is plural, and I have a hard time believing this is some reveleation of the trinity at the beginning of the starkly monotheistic Torah; I have yet to read a satisfactory answer to that issue, though I'm sure some have tried. But please, the earth in six days? Even a child can see that day and night are described before we have the earth and sun.
Christians believe God made everything, but they insist they know how also. The fact seems to be that we don't know how. And evolutionary process is no less miraculous than spoken word creation. I assumed God could used natural processes, processes that are amazing, astounding, truly, to shape suns and planets and even people. The only catch for me is understanding the rest of the Genesis account. The concept of a Golden Age, or a pre-fallen state, is common in world myth. But if we evolved from lower forms who was the first everlasting man? Who was Adam? I've been told by another blogger that a book with that title is coming out soon. Apparently its thesis will be that humans were specially created and did not evolve from lower forms. This I will have to see to believe. The evidence evolution, apart from the fossil record which is ambigous in my humble opinion, is real. As my anthropology prof friend says, 'mice have canine teeth, dogs have them, so do we.'
I am embarassed how little biology I know. But apart from that question, who became the first eternal man, the first man with a soul, and how did he fall from God...evolution presents no religious problem for me. I do think, however, that believing in evolution is one thing; declaring it proof of a non-theistic creation is another thing entirely.
A good evolutionist will leave room for God. Evolutionists don't really know how inorganic matter eventually became a living cell. The leap from non-living to living is a big one. Theists are criticized, often, by people like Michael Schermer with the 'god of the gaps' argument: it is asserted that science must be able to describe the entire process of creation without resorting to God at any point; or as Schermer pokes fun, 'and then a miracle happened!'
But it could have. He wasn't there to see that it didn't. And even if no miracle is necessary, even if we evolved without any suspension of natural law, those are some impressive laws. Some spooky laws. Atheistic evolution is a strong philosophical position, but it is by no means airtight (the same must be said of Christian theism). There is much the evolutionists do not know, much they infer, and much, really, they take on faith. They begin by assuming that no miracle contributed to creation whatsoever, and then say they have deduced that fact from the evidence. Bull. Not yet. And probably not ever. It would take observation of stars we can't visit, and tens of thousands or millions of years to make that claim.
Christ really is a stumbling block. And Paul was right, the Greeks want reason (as does Troy), but I preach Christ crucified. Ominous words, again.
This is why I think intelligent design should be taught in public school as a possible explanation, a contribution, to the creation of life. Church and state are supposed to be separate, but materialism, atheism, the absence of faith, is in fact a form of religion itself. It is a world-view reached through contemplation, as is Christianity. Simply mentioning the possibility that evolution had assistance, or a designer, seems only fair. Telling chidren that evolution has provided all the answers, that we evolved from pre-biotic soup without any intervention from an outside source, deity or for that matter alien, is a lie. My professor friends who are atheists who know evolution inside and out have told me there are big questions which remain. I realize I am an English teacher talking biology, but my point is that Darwin has not closed all the doors, and he certainly did not disprove a theistic force in creation.
I know Darwin abandoned Christianity later in life because he felt our species was not special, could not have been created and given a unique spiritual nature, but this he assumed. Even an evolving line might one day produce the Adam. This is a tough issue for me, and my brain is screaming that such a thing is unlikely. I've said it before, but if it weren't for the NT I'd be worshipping at the shrine of Cal Tech; or maybe I'd be a Fox Mulder...a Schermer groupie with one eye on the paranormal, looking for the empirical anomaly to blow the walls out. I don't have answers to how the Genesis creation myths incorporate spiritual reality, or who the first man really was or when, or why Jesus said he was the new Adam (well, that makes sense; he wouldn't upend their scientific views by two millenia, would he?) But I know evolution has no more disproved God than any other physical law. It's like saying quantum disproves God, or planetary motion. Silliness.
Do I have lots of questions still? Oh yeah. But really, the human just accidentally happened to develop according to some amazing and complex laws...that argues for a designer more than not. The church has, on and off, misunderstood Genesis (though I believe even Augustine considered that the days were ages) for millenia. It's myth, gang. It reads like myth; it performs the function of myth.
The gospels now...I have to side, again, with C.S. Lewis: they feel no more like myth than my morning paper. This does not mean they are true, but they can't be placed in the same class as most world mythology. They fit into their own special class, a class they may have created, that of the wonder-working God-man, but I have to say, I've seen nothing in literature, before or since, which comes close. The lame attempts to find convergence in vague figures of the ancient world, in Mithras or elsewhere, are very weak. The gospels, written (as even Schweitzer notes, and I'll still get to him) in at least two cases by those who would have known eyewitnesses (Mark and Luke) and in one case quite possibly collected from an eyewitness himself (John) scream out their differences to all other world literature. Sure, after the death of a great man, say Bruce Lee, myths crop up. Bruce had the touch of death, or isn't really dead, but is living with Elvis in Panama or something...but entire narratives based on miraculous cures, power of nature, over death itself, coupled with cosmic arrogance on Jesus' part (those who turn him into anything short of this aren't reading closely)...there is no literary parallel. Show me if I'm wrong, I want to see it. The Buddha miracle myths...centuries later. And after Jesus, as well. But I am drifting.
It feels nice once in a while to write like this. To silence the constant critic in my head with his own tools. But it's off to Manwich city...why not? I have a cold and need to make something easy. I'm using turkey and fresh tomato and onion and wheat buns.
Ooh. I'm hungry.
In the past I've simply said I don't care. I knew the earth was not 10,000 years old; the geologic record seems plain on this. Certainly the universe is older; we receive light from very distant objects. I've read enough myth to recognize one in the genesis accounts. These are ancient Sumerian creation stories. In fact, Elohim, translated God, is plural, and I have a hard time believing this is some reveleation of the trinity at the beginning of the starkly monotheistic Torah; I have yet to read a satisfactory answer to that issue, though I'm sure some have tried. But please, the earth in six days? Even a child can see that day and night are described before we have the earth and sun.
Christians believe God made everything, but they insist they know how also. The fact seems to be that we don't know how. And evolutionary process is no less miraculous than spoken word creation. I assumed God could used natural processes, processes that are amazing, astounding, truly, to shape suns and planets and even people. The only catch for me is understanding the rest of the Genesis account. The concept of a Golden Age, or a pre-fallen state, is common in world myth. But if we evolved from lower forms who was the first everlasting man? Who was Adam? I've been told by another blogger that a book with that title is coming out soon. Apparently its thesis will be that humans were specially created and did not evolve from lower forms. This I will have to see to believe. The evidence evolution, apart from the fossil record which is ambigous in my humble opinion, is real. As my anthropology prof friend says, 'mice have canine teeth, dogs have them, so do we.'
I am embarassed how little biology I know. But apart from that question, who became the first eternal man, the first man with a soul, and how did he fall from God...evolution presents no religious problem for me. I do think, however, that believing in evolution is one thing; declaring it proof of a non-theistic creation is another thing entirely.
A good evolutionist will leave room for God. Evolutionists don't really know how inorganic matter eventually became a living cell. The leap from non-living to living is a big one. Theists are criticized, often, by people like Michael Schermer with the 'god of the gaps' argument: it is asserted that science must be able to describe the entire process of creation without resorting to God at any point; or as Schermer pokes fun, 'and then a miracle happened!'
But it could have. He wasn't there to see that it didn't. And even if no miracle is necessary, even if we evolved without any suspension of natural law, those are some impressive laws. Some spooky laws. Atheistic evolution is a strong philosophical position, but it is by no means airtight (the same must be said of Christian theism). There is much the evolutionists do not know, much they infer, and much, really, they take on faith. They begin by assuming that no miracle contributed to creation whatsoever, and then say they have deduced that fact from the evidence. Bull. Not yet. And probably not ever. It would take observation of stars we can't visit, and tens of thousands or millions of years to make that claim.
Christ really is a stumbling block. And Paul was right, the Greeks want reason (as does Troy), but I preach Christ crucified. Ominous words, again.
This is why I think intelligent design should be taught in public school as a possible explanation, a contribution, to the creation of life. Church and state are supposed to be separate, but materialism, atheism, the absence of faith, is in fact a form of religion itself. It is a world-view reached through contemplation, as is Christianity. Simply mentioning the possibility that evolution had assistance, or a designer, seems only fair. Telling chidren that evolution has provided all the answers, that we evolved from pre-biotic soup without any intervention from an outside source, deity or for that matter alien, is a lie. My professor friends who are atheists who know evolution inside and out have told me there are big questions which remain. I realize I am an English teacher talking biology, but my point is that Darwin has not closed all the doors, and he certainly did not disprove a theistic force in creation.
I know Darwin abandoned Christianity later in life because he felt our species was not special, could not have been created and given a unique spiritual nature, but this he assumed. Even an evolving line might one day produce the Adam. This is a tough issue for me, and my brain is screaming that such a thing is unlikely. I've said it before, but if it weren't for the NT I'd be worshipping at the shrine of Cal Tech; or maybe I'd be a Fox Mulder...a Schermer groupie with one eye on the paranormal, looking for the empirical anomaly to blow the walls out. I don't have answers to how the Genesis creation myths incorporate spiritual reality, or who the first man really was or when, or why Jesus said he was the new Adam (well, that makes sense; he wouldn't upend their scientific views by two millenia, would he?) But I know evolution has no more disproved God than any other physical law. It's like saying quantum disproves God, or planetary motion. Silliness.
Do I have lots of questions still? Oh yeah. But really, the human just accidentally happened to develop according to some amazing and complex laws...that argues for a designer more than not. The church has, on and off, misunderstood Genesis (though I believe even Augustine considered that the days were ages) for millenia. It's myth, gang. It reads like myth; it performs the function of myth.
The gospels now...I have to side, again, with C.S. Lewis: they feel no more like myth than my morning paper. This does not mean they are true, but they can't be placed in the same class as most world mythology. They fit into their own special class, a class they may have created, that of the wonder-working God-man, but I have to say, I've seen nothing in literature, before or since, which comes close. The lame attempts to find convergence in vague figures of the ancient world, in Mithras or elsewhere, are very weak. The gospels, written (as even Schweitzer notes, and I'll still get to him) in at least two cases by those who would have known eyewitnesses (Mark and Luke) and in one case quite possibly collected from an eyewitness himself (John) scream out their differences to all other world literature. Sure, after the death of a great man, say Bruce Lee, myths crop up. Bruce had the touch of death, or isn't really dead, but is living with Elvis in Panama or something...but entire narratives based on miraculous cures, power of nature, over death itself, coupled with cosmic arrogance on Jesus' part (those who turn him into anything short of this aren't reading closely)...there is no literary parallel. Show me if I'm wrong, I want to see it. The Buddha miracle myths...centuries later. And after Jesus, as well. But I am drifting.
It feels nice once in a while to write like this. To silence the constant critic in my head with his own tools. But it's off to Manwich city...why not? I have a cold and need to make something easy. I'm using turkey and fresh tomato and onion and wheat buns.
Ooh. I'm hungry.
Comments
The Earth is very old (billions?). And this does not present a theological proble for me. The word 'day' in Genesis has multiple applications.
Man is unique in all creation. Science bears this out. Just look at the rest of the animal kingdom.
Because man is unique and special there is plenty of room in my economy of thinking for God and Jesus.
Man is a relatively new beast on the scene.
There is a great book entitled 'African Exodus' by Stringer and McKie. In the book, they put forward reliable scientific, anthropolical proofs that man 'spontaneously' appeared in East Africa about 60,000 years ago. Neither of the authors is a believer, rather both are experts in their fields.
Anyway, you are not alone in your wonderment. In fact I just might post in detail about this later. Peace brother.