Darwin’s theory of evolution, far from undermining the evidence for supernatural design, actually strengthens it. The question that may occur to anyone looking at Darwin on its surface is, doesn’t evolution contradict the claims of the Bible?
Let us look carefully at what the book of Genesis actually says. We read in Genesis 2:7 that
"the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life."
Right away we notice something significant: the Bible says that the universe was created out of nothing but it does not say man was created out of nothing. Rather, it says that man was made or shaped from the existing substance of nature. "Dust thou art and to dust thou shall return:' So the Bible is quite consistent with the idea that man is made up of atoms and molecules and shares the same DNA found in earthworms, whales, and monkeys.
It is true, however, that the creation account in Genesis does not prepare us for the discovery that man has about 98 percent of his DNA in common with apes. In his Descent of Man, Darwin writes that "man ... still bears in his bodily frame the indelible stamp of his lowly origin." My resistance to this is not religious; it is because I sense a significant chasm between myself and chimpanzees. Of course Darwin is not saying that man is descended from chimpanzees, only that apes and man are descended from a common ancestor. Whatever the merits of this theory, there is no reason to reject it purely on biblical grounds. Christians since medieval times have agreed with Aristotle that man is an animal—a "rational animal," but still an animal.
What makes man different, according to the Bible, is that God breathed an immaterial soul into him. Thus there is no theological problem in viewing the bodily frame of man as derived from other creatures. The Bible stresses God's resolution, "Let us make man in our image." Christians have always understood God as a spiritual rather than a material being. Consequently if man is created in the "likeness" of God, the resemblance is clearly not physical. When Jared Diamond in his book The Third Chimpanzee refers to humans as "little more than glorified chimpanzees." he is unwittingly making a Christian point. We may have common ancestors with the animals, but we are glorified animals.
But didn't the main opposition to Darwin's theory of evolution come from religious people, specifically Christians? Actually, no. Hindus, Jews, and Muslims have never really had a problem with evolution because they have always understood their creation stories as parables.
One also has to understand that despite its title, Darwin’s book does not document the origin of a single species—evolution cannot explain the beginning of life. Darwin didn’t even try. He assumed the first living thing, and then he tried to show how one living thing could be transformed into another. Nevertheless, Darwin’s theory remains correct. However, If we ever discover the fossil of a single reptile in a rock so old that fishes had not yet arrived, or if we find human skeletons at the time when dinosaurs also lived, then Darwin's theory will be proven false and biologists will have to come up with a new one. Until this happens—and I don't think it will—evolution remains the best and most persuasive account of our origins.
My sincere thanks to Dinesh D’Souza for source material on this.
No comments:
Post a Comment