Family of the Heart Seminar - Feb. 13, 2005
 |
DARWIN'S THEORY OF EVOLUTION AND RELIGION |
 |
By Don Joshua, Mississauga, ON.
 |
|
| Don Joshua | |
 |
|
It is interesting to note that what we are discussing today is not Evolution versus Creation but the theory of Evolution and Religion. The distinction is important.
Evolution looks backwards, attempting to answer the question HOW we come to be here; and Religion looks forward to answer the question WHY are we here.
What is at the heart of the discussion is whether religious people can accept Darwin’s theory of evolution or whether they are opposed to it as being incompatible with their beliefs - which in my case is the Christian belief as found in the Bible and in the person of Jesus Christ.
The creation story, found in the Bible (Genesis chapters 1 & 2) states that God created the heavens and earth and man in 6 spans of time, and saw that it was good. His “resting” on the 7th day, in verse 2 of Chapter 2, should not be misconstrued and taken literally. God is omnipotent and all-powerful and does not need to rest in the physical sense. His resting refers to a cessation of activity and, as it says in verse 3 of Chapter 2, “God blessed the 7th day and made it holy”. That is the origin of Sunday being a universal day of rest. It allows time from our regular activity to worship the Lord.
The evolution story holds that all of today’s living species, including humans, are the product of some random genetic changes called mutations, which over a period of many years produced the various species we know. And the theory states that all the species came from a single micro-organism!
Pro-Darwin evolutionists negate the presence of any Creator in the cosmos; which would appear to make them poles apart from all religious-minded creationists.
Let us examine this by first defining the term that we use.
The theory of evolution is just that – a theory. It is not a dogma, like religion. But a belief in the evolution theory requires as much faith as the creation story because evolution cannot be tested in a laboratory, nor can it make predictions about future events. As John Hudson Tiner said in his booklet “Evolution and Creation on Trial” (1982), “Evolution is a safe theory because there is no method of putting it to a scientific test.”
Darwin’s theory of evolution was first articulated in his book “The Origin of the Species” published in 1859; and argues 3 important related propositions:
1. the species are not immutable,
2. evolution accounts for the diversity of life and all living creatures have a common ancestor, and
3. the entire process is guided by natural selection, sometimes called the “survival of the fittest”.
Darwin did not suggest in this first book that man had evolved from an ape-like mammal. That was articulated later in his book entitled “The Descent of Man” which was published 12 years later in 1871.
Darwin’s name is closely associated with the theory of evolution; but in fact his book “The Origin of the Species” was a plagiarized version of a paper known as the “Sarawak Law”, published in 1855 by the naturalist, Alfred Russel Wallace. In 1859, Wallace was lying ill in Borneo and sent his paper to Darwin for his evaluation. Wallace was not well known in England and had no financial resources. Darwin was wealthy, had influential supporters and was living in England. He presented Wallace’s ideas along with a summary of his theory as a joint-paper but followed this up with the publication of his book, establishing natural selection as a mechanism of evolution. He also did a tremendous amount of research to support his theory. His ideas found wide acceptance and “Darwinism” became the fad.
This did not sit well with religious fundamentalists. In 1925 Tennessee passed the Butler Act which prohibited the teaching of evolution in public schools; presumably because it conflicted with religious beliefs, specifically the creation story found in the Bible. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) thought this infringed on the right of free speech and took this up in a celebrated case “State of Tennessee vs. John Thomas Scopes”, a High School teacher. Scopes was convicted of flouting the law but his conviction was overthrown by the Supreme Court of Tennessee. Consequently, evolution was not taught in public schools for 40 years. But in 1967, the Butler Act was repealed.
The problem with theory of evolution is succinctly articulated by Phillip Johnson in his article “Evolution as Dogma”. He says “what the science educators propose to teach is evolution as a science and label it as fact, when it is based not upon any incontrovertible empirical evidence, but upon a highly controversial philosophical presupposition.”
Johnson goes on to say that if we were to re-define some terms, the theories of evolution and creation could become compatible. For example, he says “Naturalistic evolution is consistent with the existence of “God” only if by that term we mean no more than a first cause which retires from further activity after establishing the laws of nature and setting the natural mechanism in motion.”
But this is too simplistic since it ignores a God who is interested in mankind and intervenes and controls the process to accomplish some ends. Johnson also quotes Douglas Futuyma who in his book “Science on Trial: The case for Evolution” says, “Some shrink from the conclusion that the human species was not designed, has no purpose, and is the product of mere material mechanisms – but this seems to be the message of evolution.”
Which brings us to the question whether religious people should oppose the teaching of evolution or embrace it, as an example of how we can learn about the nature of our existence here on earth?
The creation story in the Bible is attributed to Moses who was not as interested in Geology as he was in Theology. Creation is inherently a religious doctrine. It cannot be taken scientifically, because science limits itself to facts, hypotheses and theories. But it must be taken seriously since the story intrudes on the question of values, such as whether mankind was created for a purpose.
The Bible and most of the world’s sacred books were written many centuries before Darwin published his treatise on “The Origin of the Species”. And while the theory of evolution is accepted by a small segment of the population, religion endures because man needs a belief system that puts him into a right relationship with God. Religionists believe that getting to heaven is the most important thing in this life.
Throw out those values and you are left with a naturalistic theory of creation to become what Richard Dawkins, author of “The Blind Watchmaker” calls an intellectually fulfilled atheist.
An atheist, as we know, is a person who says God does not exist but agnosticism is a much more effective dismissal of God. The word “agnostic” was coined by Darwin’s disciple Thomas Huxley who said that all knowledge comes from science and since you cannot get knowledge of God that way, an “agnostic” has nothing to say in this matter.
This way of putting it has just enough truth to make it misleading. A naturalist who believes in evolution cannot say (and I paraphrase Phillip Johnson) it is untrue that all living things were created through supernatural means; but simply that the statement is not scientific.
In a 1982 Gallop Poll in America an overwhelming majority of people expressed some sort of theistic belief which was inconsistent with naturalism. In this poll, 44% agreed with the statement “God created man pretty much in his present form at one time within the last 10,000 years.” 39% accepted evolution as a process guided by God. 8% said they did not know; and only 9% identified themselves as believers in a natural evolutionary process not guided by God.
Is it fair that the philosophy of the 9% should be taught as unchallengeable truth? When Darwin presented his proposition that man had evolved from an ape-like mammal in 1871, Benjamin Disraeli was the Prime Minister of England. He summed up the debate at that time by saying, “The question is, is man an ape or an angel? Many laugh. Now I am on the side of the angels.” Disraeli incidentally was a Jew, not a Christian.
Whether or not one accepts evolution, one knows that there are changes going on all the time. Every person is the product of the characteristics he inherits; and outside influences that he experiences. A Creationist, who believes in the creation story found in the Bible, can accept Microevolution, which are the changes that take place in living organisms through inheritance or experience; but not Macroevolution, which is the notion that species evolve over a period of time to become other species.
A message passing around on the internet asked the pertinent question: “If man evolved from the apes, why do apes still exist? They should be extinct!”
But if we believe that man must have a purpose to life, it is easy to believe in a Creator and the creation story found in the Bible. But one has to ignore the superficial parts and dig deeper into the truth that the writer of the incident was trying to reveal. It is immaterial whether God made the world in 6 spans of time or billions of years. The truth that was revealed to that writer hundreds of years before Christ was that God made the earth and all the living creatures on it. It was a revelation of God for the people of the Old Testament and this revelation reaches its climax and completion in the New Testament in the person of Jesus Christ.
God does not have a human body. God is a Spirit and must be worshipped in spirit and in truth. In Genesis Chapter 1 verse 27 it says, “God created man in his own image”. It is his Spirit, not his face or body that is passed on to man. This Spirit is the divine part of our human nature which lives in us and allows us to have a relationship with God.
God’s creative activity is repeated every time a child is born into this world. Notwithstanding all our scientific knowledge and medical skills, we cannot create life without the active participation of God.
So we are confronted with the question: can Science, which is essentially a self-correcting method of discovering facts about the natural world and organizing those facts in a useful form; coexist with Religion, which is essentially a desire to know the nature of God and a search for Truth, Guidance and Inspiration?
If God exists (and I don’t think any one in this room doubts that) then it is not improbable that He would take a hand in creation. It is arrogant for science to claim that it has the power to explain everything.
But Science and Religion can co-exist. It was a wise man who said, “The sign of a mature intelligence is the ability to entertain two conflicting ideas at the same time.” A scientist can be a believer in God (many physicists and physicians do); and a religious person can be a scientist (for example Father Gregor Mendel, the monk who founded the science of Genetics in a monastery garden in 1865).
A person with a belief in the Almighty is concerned with what we can do in this life to make ourselves worthy of heaven. As the Rev John Pugh put it, “We are not citizens of the world trying to make our way to heaven. We are citizens of heaven trying to make our way through the world.”
We may want to look backwards to discover HOW we got here but we should look forward to discover WHY we are here - and whether there is a God. More than wealth, or power, or influence we need to establish a right relationship with God. In the final analysis, the best evidence of God is nature. Nature is also the best teacher.
Eliza Cook expresses this well in her poem, where she says:
Nature with a matchless hand, sends forth her nobly born.
and laughs the paltry attributes of wealth and rank to scorn.
She moulds with care, a spirit rare - half human, half divine
and cries exultingly, “Who can make a gentleman like mine?”
A gentleman, in this context, is one who allows the spirit of God, which is instilled in each of us at birth, to emerge.
St. Paul in his letter to the Galatians, chapter 5 verse 22 in the New Testament of the Bible, refers to the fruit of the spirit as Love, Joy, Peace, Patience, Kindness, Goodness, & Faithfulness.
As we pass through this world, the best thing we can do, whatever our religious persuasion, is to submerge our sinful nature and reflect the fruit of the spirit in our daily lives, to become citizens of heaven.
For men or women created in the image of God, that would be the best kind of evolution.
DON JOSHUA February 2005
|