Creation and Evolution
Q. Why do evolution and creationism have to be mutually exclusive? After all, it would not be the first time the church was incorrect about a scientific fact. The universe does not revolve around the earth. Could it not be true that God meant for evolution to occur? I don't understand how that is so difficult.
From a Biblical perspective, however, creation and evolution are mutually exclusive. Genesis 1-2 state that God made the heavens and the earth, in all their vast array, in six days.
The Hebrew word for day is yom and, though there is some contention between scholars over its exact translation, yom is most often translated as a literal 24-hour period of time. To further support the idea of a literal day, look at the emphasis the author of Genesis places in Genesis 1:5, 8, 13, 19, 23, 31 by saying each time that the day consisted of both a morning and an evening. The Hebrew word for morning is boqer and it is used 212 times in the Old Testament. Every time, it refers to either morning or dawn and it is never used as an indefinite metaphorical time period. The Hebrew word for evening is ereb and it is used 134 times in the Old Testament and is always translated as evening, dusk, or twilight. When placed in context with boqer and ereb, which are both definite periods of time, the word yom should also be translated as a literal 24-hour day.
Because the Genesis account places the act of creation within a literal six-day timeframe, it most certainly disagrees with the theory of evolution as it is understood today. It also contrasts with theistic evolution because it does not allow time for the process of evolution to take place.
For those that believe in theistic evolution, I want to challenge you with a question: "Do you believe in a God powerful enough to create the universe without the process of evolution?" If there is a Being powerful enough to create every particle of matter that exists, why is it so absurd to believe that that Being also had the power to create everything in six days? To say that God had to use evolution as a crutch to create everything as we see it now destroys the image of an all-powerful God. And if God is not all-powerful, there isn't much point in believing in Him to begin with.
Saying that the Church is wrong about creationism and evolution simply because it has been wrong before does little in the way of ending the debate of origin one way or the other. How many times has Science been wrong? How many times have scientific theories been disproven?
Stating evolution as a scientific fact is a dangerous assumption. Evolution is still classified as a theory and is far from being provable over and over again.
Biochemist Michael Behe argues a concept called irreducible complexity in his book Darwin's Black Box. The premise of Behes book is that evolution can only be proven or disproven on a biochemical basis, being as each mutation must first take place on such a level for it to happen at all. Using the example of the eye, Behe argues that it is composed of interdependent parts. When all of the parts are present and working properly, vision occurs. When all of the parts are present, but one or more are working improperly, impaired vision or possibly blindness is the result. When one or more of the parts is missing, vision cannot occur because the parts are interdependent.
An argument of enhancement to essential presupposes an initial precursor mechanism (i.e. something that needs to be enhanced). However, if the initial mechanism was not essential to begin with and did not fulfill the need for vision (however primitive), would not evolution take over and eradicate the useless mechanism? As I understand evolution, an organism will face a need, and then eventually develop a mechanism to meet the need. If the need is not met or not met in time, survival of the fittest takes over and the species dies. If there is a need for vision, and the organism produces a non-essential mechanism that needs to undergo gradual enhancement before it becomes essential by meeting the need for vision, the organism and then the species would die out.
Arguably, the human eye could have evolved gradually from a light-sensitive spot the a series of minute improvements, but a light-sensitive spot still has interdependent parts and is unexplainable if survival of the fittest is true. It is what Behe calls irreducibly complex. Either all of the parts had to evolve at once, or not at all. Such punctuated evolution draws a close parallel with special creation, although they are not quite the same. Behe argues that there is far more of a chance of special creation than punctuated evolution, an opinion which I share wholeheartedly.
In addition to Behe and other creationists' arguments, there are many well-regarded evolutionists that are not fully comfortable with the evidence that the theory of evolution has produced after more than 150 years of study. Consider the following quotes:
"All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt."
-Stephen Jay Gould (Professor of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University), "The return of hopeful monsters". "Natural History", vol. LXXXVI (6), June-July 1977, p. 24.
"Since 1859 one of the most vexing properties of the fossil record has been its obvious imperfection. For the evolutionist this imperfection is most frustrating as it precludes any real possibility for mapping out the path of organic evolution owing to an infinity of 'missing links'.The fossil record is replete with evidence favoring organic evolution provided by short sequences of species with overlapping morphologies arranged in a clinal manner with time; the same is true for many sequences of genera and even for a fairish number of families. However, once above the family level it becomes very difficult in most instances to find any solid paleontological evidence for morphological intergrades between one suprafamilial taxon and another. This lack has been taken advantage of classically by the opponents of organic evolution as a major defect of the theory. In other words, the inability of the fossil record to produce the 'missing links' has been taken as solid evidence for disbelieving the theory."
-Arthur J. Boucot, Ph.D. (geology) (Professor of Geology, Oregon State University, USA) in "Evolution and Extinction Rate Controls", Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1975, p. 196.
"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. Yet Darwin was so wedded to gradualism that he wagered his entire theory on a denial of this literal record:
'The geological record is extremely imperfect and this fact will to a large extent explain why we do not find interminable varieties, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps. He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject my whole theory.'
Darwin's argument still persists as the favored escape of most paleontologists from the embarrassment of a record that seems to show so little of evolution. In exposing its cultural and methodological roots, I wish in no way to impugn the potential validity of gradualism (for all general views have similar roots). I wish only to point out that it was never 'seen' in the rocks.
Paleontologists have paid an exorbitant price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study."
-Stephen Jay Gould (Professor of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University), "Evolution's erratic pace". "Natural History", vol. LXXXVI(5), May 1977, p. 14.
The case for evolution is hardly set in stone. I encourage anyone interested to pursue the subject in much more depth. Read books, articles, and studies in depth. Don't accept facts at face value, but dig deep into actual findings. What you find might surprise you.
No comments:
Post a Comment