Evolution

Believe it or not

Beliefs play a huge part in the way people view their lives and its purpose. One of the most popular beliefs in the world is Creationism, which asserts that the universe and all living things originate from specific acts of God. Since beliefs drive humans’ intentions, people who believe in Creationism devote their lives to mirroring God. Many people started having a doubt about Creationism when Charles Darwin presented the biological theory of evolution, which tells us that people are descendants with modifications from apelike ancestors and share some similarities with lower animals. Numerous scholars supported the latter theory and verified it by inventing the DNA test and finding fossils.  The emergence of Darwinian evolution theory  makes Creationism no longer compatible with our scientific knowledge, and this influences creationists to be defensive and think that evolution is a devious  venture. There are so many cases, such as in Dover, Pennsylvania and Kansas,  where several school board members have tried to cut back the teaching of evolution and insert Creationism into science classes. On the contrary,  some people, such as Richard Dawkins, Bill Nye and Christopher Hitchens, radically believe in evolution and reject the existence of God. As a Christian, I believe that God exists and He is the creator of all things. However, I can’t ignore the proof which indicates that the biological theory of evolution is true. Ultimately, I believe that in some ways Genesis and evolution are compatible with each other.

Biological evolution refers to inheritable changes of an organism via genetic material from one generation to the next.  This process is prompted by several mechanisms, such as gene flow, genetic drift, mutation and natural selection. Clearly, the most important  is natural selection. It happens when species with certain characteristics survive as the fittest in the nature and pass on their innate genetics material to their offsprings. The theory of biological evolution is supported by many naturalists, such as Jean Baptiste Lamarck who asserted in his article Philosophie Zoologique that evolution happens by means of natural processes in which organisms develop to a greater complexity and change structures and functions through use and disuse. Furthermore,  Comte de Buffon wrote a book titled Historie Naturelle which explains that life is spontaneously originated and that body structures and functions alter through migration. Similarly, Charles Darwin wrote The Origin of Species and The Descent of Man, which declare the role of natural selection and the relationship between humans and lower animals. The latter works have been the most influential arguments for other naturalists.

Darwin’s notion is based on the idea of variation. He asserts that variations are tangible in both organisms in nature and domesticated organisms. Variation explain why one species ranges widely and is manifold, and why another organic being has narrow range and is rare. It “will tend to the preservation of such individuals, and will generally be inherited by the offspring” (Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, 69). Variation is related to natural selection in causing a species to evolve, as natural selection brings forth the descent with modification by accumulating slight, successive, favourable variations. In formulating this theory, Darwin was inspired by his observation in Galapagos Island during his journey on SS Beagle. He found so many types of finches that differed in the size and shape of their beaks. Later, scientists found that the difference is caused by the various food in the island. The theory of variation and natural selection led Darwin to publish his works about human origin. He asserts that humans are descended from ape-like progenitor and share similarities with lower animals. They have the same bodily structure, embryonic development, and rudiments. In mental powers, humans share the capability in imitation, attention, memories, imagination, reasoning, and sense of beauty. The difference of those features  is not one of kind, but of degree.

Evolution theory has been the center of controversy which continues to rage. One major opposition theory is Creationism, a belief in the literal account of Genesis that God created the universe and the first humans in seven days. Creationists strongly reject the idea that humans are related to apes and argue that evolution is merely a theory and “the evolutionary psychologists with their just so stories for everything have become more contradictory than Leviticus” (Virginia Hefferman, Why I’m a Creationist). There are a lot of cases involving creationism and evolution theory, such as Kitzmiller versus Dover Area School District, and Anti-Evolution Group against Kansas Education Board. The major problem in those cases is the theory called Intelligent Design, which declare that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. Convinced that sometimes creationists are too defensive, I believe that they should be more open to new theory as “it is a duty for theologians to keep themselves regularly informed of scientific advances in order to examine if such be necessary, whether or not there are reasons for taking them into account in their reflection or for introducing changes in their teaching” (Pope John Paul II, Holy Father’s Address – 4 November 1992).

Speaking of Darwin, he believed that life was developed from non-life and complex organism evolved undirectedly from more simplistic ancestors by means of natural selection. Supporters of Darwin’s evolution theory reject the notion of Intelligent Design, which asserts that God acts as an intelligent agent who designs the features of organisms, as they believe that evolution has been verified by later works such as DNA test. They argue, “we can now safely say that the illusion of design in living creatures is just that – an illusion” (Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion, 159). On the other side, Michael Behe, one of the Intelligent Design supporters, says:

the result of these cumulative efforts to investigate the cell—to investigate life at the molecular level—is a loud, clear, piercing cry of “design!” The result is so unambiguous and so significant that it must be ranked as one of the greatest achievements in the history of science. (Darwin’s Black Box, The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution)  

However, the authors of Genesis didn’t explain the process of creation in detail. God did say “let the water teem with living creatures” (Genesis 1:20) and “let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds” (Genesis 1:24), but the authors never explained from where the water came from and what’s the process for the land in producing living creatures.  Seeing no evidence that God prefer designing directly to using other processes, we see no reason why God could not have used a natural evolution in forming all living things.  As a Christian, I believe that God created all kinds of organic beings. Still, I believe that He inserts some internal laws to His creations so that they can develop and grow to the current condition. Moreover, the phrase “Let the Earth bring forth” in Genesis means that God wants the earth to  produce animals based on its capability, which includes the mechanism of natural evolution.So, evolution process is not merely because of undirected cause, but by some internal laws in the nature that were given by God.

When thinking about evolution, some people still regard it as a linear process and depict a picture of crouching apes which begin to progress to a fully standing man. This is the reason why people who stand for creationism argue that if there were evolution, apes would have vanished.  However, evolution process is not linear because it’s not a process in which a species universally progress up like a ladder, but a series of adaptation in a complex process which includes many branches and sub branches. According to Darwin, humans and lower animals share similarities in bodily structure, embryonic development and rudiments and they also share some intellectual, mental and moral faculties.Those similarities “all point in the plainest manner to the conclusion that man is the co-descendant with other mammals of a common progenitor” (Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man, 437). Darwin stated that humans and apes were related because they had the same common ancestors that existed some time in the past, but he never proposed that humans were direct descendants from apes. On the other hand, the account of Genesis tells us that humans were made from dust, but it don’t clearly declare from what materials animals were created. For this reason, I believe that there is a high possibility where all living things are also made from dust. It answers why a DNA test shows a match between man, apes and all living things. It also answers why there can be a match between apes and man without stressing that apes is the early progenitors of man.

The fear of losing humanity is one of the main reason why some people reject the theory of biological evolution. Designed from the dust of the earth and lived through the very breath of God is the primary evidence that human beings are unique and destined to be on the top on the hierarchy of the created world. Creationists believe that humanity  enable us to know the foundation of our dignity and foster justice and equality. They believe that it reveals to make moral, spiritual, and intellectual sense of the world.  So when the evolution theory states that humans are created from the same simple organisms which made lower animals, creationists strongly reject it with a  consideration that it will deflect the concept of humanity. Pastor Ray Mummer says:

Teaching the traditional evolutionary Darwinian concept that man evolved from lower forms of life, that’s almost a slap in my face. That takes the dignity away from humanity, as far as I’m concerned. What gives dignity to man is that every one of us are made in the image of God. (Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial) 

However, religions often fail humanity by degrading it in some ways, such as torturing and killing people in the name of religion. Many people uphold their religions so high and they regard the other religions as a threat to theirs. The emergence of evolution theory “throws light upon many obscure points of doctrine and of theology that have most sadly needed light and solution” (Henry Ward Beecher, The Two Revelations,136) because it gives us a new sight in viewing our lives with other people. Evolution theory don’t take dignity and humanity away, but it helps us to maintain our true humanity which is all about our experience with others. Just as Kenneth Miller says, “even to a person of faith, in fact especially to a person of faith, an understanding of the evolutionary process should only deepen their appreciation of the scope and wisdom of the creator's work”. We can appreciate nature and the other people more by considering the evolution theory because we know that all humans are equal.

Morality has been a challenging problem in an evolutionary worldview. According to Charles Darwin, moral faculties on man emerge when social qualities have been developed. The praise and the blame of our fellow-men , which also acts as a powerful stimulus to the development of morality on humans, are primary due to the instinct of sympathy “and this instinct no doubt was originally acquired, like all the other social instincts, through natural selection” (Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man, 99). Based on the evolution theory, morality can be explained by the natural process without appealing to the divine being. On the other hand, some people say that our moral is founded on the rock of God’s word. They dispute Darwin’s thesis that human’s moral faculties can be seen in lower animals and acquired from natural selection. In this case, I believe that morality, if it is based only on the praise and blame from others, will only be devoted to satisfying  one’s preferences. Furthermore, if we set up morality on our common sense, there will be no universal moral code which can be the standard. Let’s pick murder as an example. When we don’t have an ultimate foundation for morality, a murder can be justified as something to be praised and perfectly acceptable, just like in the regime of Hitler, Mussolini, and Stalin. Ten Commandments in the Bible which says, “You shall not murder” (Exodus 20:13) can be one of the universal standard which prevent murder.  I am convinced that morality has been given by God from the very first place, and praise or blame from others acts as a mechanism of how humans develop their morals. Without the Bible as the fundamental basis, the standard of right and wrong will only be a group preference or a favourite thing, which lead into chaos because everyone can interpret their morality based on their own preferences. I believe that evolution theory is compatible because it explains the mechanism of how humans develop the morality, which root has been given by God in the account of Genesis.

Therefore, I believe that evolution is compatible with the Holy Bible because of some reasons. First, evolution explain the mechanism of how organic beings  evolve by using the internal law that has been given by God. Second, evolution is not linear, so there is a high possibility that humans are lower animals are made from dust, just like in the Bible. Third, evolution thoery doesn’t contradict humanity, but it maintain equality which sometimes forgotten by religious people. Fourth, evolution and The Holy Bible is compatible in explaining morality because it explain the way people develop moralitly which has been given by God.

Scientific revolution

Religions and beliefs

Religions and beliefs, a way people view the world in large scope as a whole and as a place of the individual therein, is a prodigious factor which drives human actions and behaviours. It influences education, social and political views among nations, and the understanding of man and the natural world for a long period. Nonetheless, the emergence of scientific revolution slightly shifted their views, especially in the understanding of man and the natural world. On the one hand, it was an enlightment for scholars who hardly agree with religious theories of man and the natural world. On the other hand, it rose so many controversies among scholars and theologians. It also increases the tendency to the religion extremities, which can be seen in some groups, such as The Amish, The Mennonites, and The old German Brethren who oppose the scientific revolution and are reluctant to implement science and technology in their lives. In spite of many pros and contras, I believe that science, combined with religions and beliefs, in some ways helps people to have a better understanding of man and the natural world. 

Scientific revolution is a historical change in thoughts and beliefs, social and institutional organizations, and fields of education, such as mathematics, astronomy, physics and chemistry. It proceeds from the Copernicus’ cosmological revolution which centered in the Heliocentric theory,  to Isaac Newton with his universal laws and mechanical universe. Those Roman naturalists were inspired by the Greek Philosophers. In fact, the Ancient Greek philosophers opened the path for this revolution. The most well-known were: Aristotle, whose notions were based on the idea of syllogism, Plato, who established his famous Theory of Forms, and Ptolemy, who introduced the Geocentric theory, which was acknowledged by lots of scientists, including Aristotles. These people and their theories influenced the knowledge of many people at that time. These Roman scientists contributed to the development of science that influenced people in understanding their world. In fact, one major distinction from Roman scientist was that they believed in Heliocentric Theory, which led to many controversies.

Scientific Revolution faced a bunch of social and technology barriers. The social barriers were primarily from The Catholic Church. At that time, one theory that influenced people is Geocentric theory, which asserted that the earth was the center of universe. This way of thinking is influenced by The Catholic Church which stressed that God’s creation, primarily the earth, should be at the center of the universe. Moreover, there was a proof in the bible which indicated that the earth was the center of universe; “He set the earth on its foundations, so that it should never be moved” (Psalm 104:5). This is the reason why the work of Copernicus and Lucretius was left behind for years, and why Galileo Galilei was imprisoned for the rest of his life after published his book titled  Dialogues on the Two Chief World Systems. The Church often suspected that experiments, researches, and works of those naturalist interfered and infringed the story in the Holy Bible. Because of that, the church tried to ban and demolish works done by the scientists. In this case, I think the Church was too confident with their theories, and didn’t want to listen to any other opinions, just as what William Gilbert said “ignorance of the ancients or the neglect of moderns, have remained unrecognized and overlooked” (Course Reader, The Great Magnet The Earth; A New Physiology, Demonstrated by Many Arguments and Experiments, 114). 

Scientists also faced some restraints from the society in the way they viewed those works. It must be admitted that at that time, those naturalists often used the complex and uncommon words in writing their works and researches without considering that their new idea was hard enough for the society to process in minds. The lack of understanding, added by the reluctance to be enlightened, led to mockeries and ridicules of those works. However, sometimes the complex words or new terms in science are needed, as William Gilbert said “Sometimes therefore we use new and unusual words, not that by means of foolish veils of vocabularies we should cover over the facts with shades and mists, but that hidden things which have no name, never having been hitherto perceived, may be plainly and correctly enunciated” (Course Reader, The Great Magnet The Earth; A New Physiology, Demonstrated by Many Arguments and Experiments, 115)

The works of scientists were also bound by the unavailable of technology. There were few discoveries, such as the invention of telescope by Hans Lippershey, which helped Galileo to observe the other objects in the sky. However, it wasn’t enough, as Galileo said “For, unless the instrument be of such power, it will be in vain to attempt to view all the things which have been seen by men in the heavens, or which will be enumerated hereafter” (Course Reader, The Starry Herald, 113).

Although there were a lot of barriers, the urge of telling the truth conquer the fear of the scientists in publishing their works. They started to publish their research and experiments because they want to reveal the truth “for it is too bad that there are so few who seek the truth and so few who do not follow a mistaken method in philosophy” (Galileo Galilei, Comrades in the Pursuit of Truth, 106). In the field of physics, Isaac Newton found the universal laws, Kepler established his laws of planetary motion. In the field of Biology, Lamarck established his theory of evolution, and Darwin with his On the Origins of Species . In the fields of Mathematics, John Napier invented logarithms, and Rene Discartes found the Cartesian equation.

In my opinion, scientific revolution helps people to have a better understanding in their religions and beliefs, especially in the issue of man and the natural world. The Book of Genesis explains about how the earth was created and controlled by God, yet it doesn’t explain how God controls the world. In this case, it is hard for people to believe in something that they can’t achieve with logic and reasoning. Recently, Pope Francis also cautioned against the view of God as a magician with a magic wand. This statement clarified that understanding man and the natural world from the reliigon point of view is vague and ambitious, because “a religion is solely the creation of the scholar’s study. It is created for the scholar’s analytic purposes by his imaginative acts of comparison and generalization. Religion has no existence apart from the academy” (Jonathan Z.Smith, Imagining Religion, From Babylon to Jonestown). If there was only religion without the occurence of scientific revolution, there will be new stories and myths around the world about how the nature works without being clarified which one is the truth. By using scientific revolution, it limits the numerous possibilities for people to make up their own beliefs, which can lead into a bigger controversy and diversion among people. With scientific revolution, it enhances our ability in understanding the world we live because it can be proven scientificaly. Science was not questioning religious beliefs, it is used as a tool to undermine the false beliefs. For it is not enough to have a good mind. The main thing is to apply it well. The greatest minds are capable of the greatest vices as well as the greatest virtues, and those who proceed only very slowly, if they always stay on the right road, are capable of advancing a great deal further than those who rush along and wander away from it. (Rene Descartes, Discourse on the Method 

In my opinion, scientific revolution and religions have  distinct focuses. A religion is a guidance of our behaviour, as “it forces us to change our minds and hearts, gives us new hope, and compels us to live more fully” (Karen Armstrong, A Short History of Myth, 10), so it can’t be translated literally. Because it can’t be translated literally, there is no valid answer on man and the natural world. Scientific revolution gives us the valid  scientific answer which can be accepted by man with logical thinking and reasoning. Religions explain that humans are created alike to God, they are special creatures as they were created separately. After knowing that a religion is a guidance and that God in Genesis is described as a loving God, I think the author of Genesis wrote it that way to guide people to behave as loving persons. Most important stories in the Bible have a lot of moral values, and they are used as guidances. However, from the perspective of science, they have different answers. From Lucretius, who said that human was made from atom structure, and because “nature restlessly experiments, we are simply one among the innumerable results” (Stephen Greenblatt, Annals of Culture; The Answer Man, 94). The other major argument about man is that we are related to lower forms of animals, which is asserted by Charles Darwin. He tells us that humans have the similarities with the lower animals, especially apes, in the bodily structure, embryonic development, and rudiments. Furthermore, they all have similar senses and intuitions, and the similar various emotions and faculties, such as love, memory, attention, curiosity, imitation, reason, and so on. The theory that apes are the progenitors of man, were proven by the invention of DNA tests. The DNA test shows that we, humans, have 98% similarities with apes. So, “it is only our natural prejudice, and that arrogance which made our forefathers declare that they were descended from demi-gods, leads us to demur to this conclusion” (Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man, 16)