As of this time tomorrow I will totally done with the Intro. Biology course I've been working on by correspondence for the last 6 months. The fact that I most certainly am not a scientist has been confirmed...but the course was good. I especially enjoyed learning about evolution, having heard of it only from (usually not-so informed) detractors to this point. The course was from an American Christian College, so the perspective was Biblical but the main text was not.
The following was the last section of the last lesson. I was to respond to what I had learned about the biological process of evolution and comment on the origin of life, and the prof liked what I came up with. (If you are a biologist, please keep in mind that I am not.)
ON ORIGINS AND GENESIS
Before I begin, a disclaimer: As recently as a year or two ago I would have characterized myself as a proponent of the Apparent Age theory (although I didn’t know the specific term), more than willing to ignore any and all scientific evidence in favour of a literal interpretation of Genesis 1-3. Over the last years I have begun to question this approach, but have not yet the expertise or knowledge to choose any of the alternatives. If this essay seems confused it is simply a reflection of my current state of mind.
With regards to the origin of life on earth, I hold that it must have come about through supernatural means. The first organism would have had to have arisen only with the direct intervention of God into creation. This does not mean that God necessarily called that creature into existence with a Word, out of nothing. Even if the first living being was a cell that evolved from a protocell in the primordial soup, the formation of life from inanimate molecules must have required the inspiration of God. It is for this reason that neither experimentation nor theory can explain the spontaneous formation of the first cell even under ideal conditions. It is simply impossible!
I also have a problem with common descent of all creatures and species from a single living organism. It is commonly held, due to evidence from the fossil record, that marine organisms came first and from them evolved early amphibians with a type of proto-lung system which made their way onto land. My problem is this: it is an astronomical coincidence that these fish developed lungs which, I presume, did them no good, and also developed the desire to leave their only habitat for dry-land to which they were totally foreign and for which they were unsuited. Or take the development of flying birds or reptiles. Flying takes not only precise body structure but also knowledge of how to fly and comfort in a foreign environment. Or how did complex organs like the eye evolve? Until all components were in place and precisely calibrated such an organ would be worse than useless. I suppose it is possible that such strange leaps of evolution might have taken place with God’s Hand guiding many small steps until the process was complete, but such a view involves such complex coincidences as to stretch the boundaries of belief.
My discomfort with common descent is, of course, confronted with much evidence that such is exactly what occurred. And so, I believe I am coming to accept evolution of the species from limited “kinds.” I can easily accept that God created one species of bird from which all birds evolved, and one species of marine organism from which all fish, reptiles and amphibians evolved. I do believe in microevolution and can see how, with sufficient time and variation, extremely different species could result. However, if that common lineage can be traced back to a cell, or protocell, or RNA molecule,…, I know not. I would rather believe that God created a few kinds of organisms, in a mature state, with the potential for development through natural selection. Thus, the “days” in Genesis 1 correspond to lengthy periods of time. Or, as time is also a creature of God, that the creation up to a certain point was called into existence outside of time. That is, “creation time” and our time may not be the same thing. I think this is the best approach to interpreting the creation account. I suppose this is a variation of the Day-Age theory. Time was created as other creatures were created, so that as the “days” pass time more and more resembles its present state.
As to the origin of mankind, I feel I need to insist on a supernatural creation ex nihilo. Although there is so much evidence of common ancestry with primates and a record of intermediate humanoids, if we accept the evolution of humans from apes we loose key theological points. It seems clear from Scripture that death was a consequence of sin. If humans evolved from humanoids, some must have died before reaching “Adam.” I suppose you could distinguish between humans and proto-humans; that Adam was the first true human and his ancestors were not. Thus Adam was the first human to die. However, this distinction seems arbitrary and forced, as the differences between the late humanoids and first human must have been miniscule.
I truly desire to harmonize Scripture with nature, but at this point have many more questions than answers on how this must be done. John Calvin tells us that the Bible is a pair of spectacles through which we can view nature more clearly; I’m still searching for the right prescription. What is the origin of life? God. How? Did He create one organism from which all others, including humans, descended? Good question. Did He create numerous, or limited species, from which today’s species come? Perhaps. There are many answers to these questions each of which has certain insights into God’s revelation and certain gaping holes. Which is correct? I just don’t know, but whichever way God be praised for His wisdom and power evident in creation!
With regards to the origin of life on earth, I hold that it must have come about through supernatural means. The first organism would have had to have arisen only with the direct intervention of God into creation. This does not mean that God necessarily called that creature into existence with a Word, out of nothing. Even if the first living being was a cell that evolved from a protocell in the primordial soup, the formation of life from inanimate molecules must have required the inspiration of God. It is for this reason that neither experimentation nor theory can explain the spontaneous formation of the first cell even under ideal conditions. It is simply impossible!
I also have a problem with common descent of all creatures and species from a single living organism. It is commonly held, due to evidence from the fossil record, that marine organisms came first and from them evolved early amphibians with a type of proto-lung system which made their way onto land. My problem is this: it is an astronomical coincidence that these fish developed lungs which, I presume, did them no good, and also developed the desire to leave their only habitat for dry-land to which they were totally foreign and for which they were unsuited. Or take the development of flying birds or reptiles. Flying takes not only precise body structure but also knowledge of how to fly and comfort in a foreign environment. Or how did complex organs like the eye evolve? Until all components were in place and precisely calibrated such an organ would be worse than useless. I suppose it is possible that such strange leaps of evolution might have taken place with God’s Hand guiding many small steps until the process was complete, but such a view involves such complex coincidences as to stretch the boundaries of belief.
My discomfort with common descent is, of course, confronted with much evidence that such is exactly what occurred. And so, I believe I am coming to accept evolution of the species from limited “kinds.” I can easily accept that God created one species of bird from which all birds evolved, and one species of marine organism from which all fish, reptiles and amphibians evolved. I do believe in microevolution and can see how, with sufficient time and variation, extremely different species could result. However, if that common lineage can be traced back to a cell, or protocell, or RNA molecule,…, I know not. I would rather believe that God created a few kinds of organisms, in a mature state, with the potential for development through natural selection. Thus, the “days” in Genesis 1 correspond to lengthy periods of time. Or, as time is also a creature of God, that the creation up to a certain point was called into existence outside of time. That is, “creation time” and our time may not be the same thing. I think this is the best approach to interpreting the creation account. I suppose this is a variation of the Day-Age theory. Time was created as other creatures were created, so that as the “days” pass time more and more resembles its present state.
As to the origin of mankind, I feel I need to insist on a supernatural creation ex nihilo. Although there is so much evidence of common ancestry with primates and a record of intermediate humanoids, if we accept the evolution of humans from apes we loose key theological points. It seems clear from Scripture that death was a consequence of sin. If humans evolved from humanoids, some must have died before reaching “Adam.” I suppose you could distinguish between humans and proto-humans; that Adam was the first true human and his ancestors were not. Thus Adam was the first human to die. However, this distinction seems arbitrary and forced, as the differences between the late humanoids and first human must have been miniscule.
I truly desire to harmonize Scripture with nature, but at this point have many more questions than answers on how this must be done. John Calvin tells us that the Bible is a pair of spectacles through which we can view nature more clearly; I’m still searching for the right prescription. What is the origin of life? God. How? Did He create one organism from which all others, including humans, descended? Good question. Did He create numerous, or limited species, from which today’s species come? Perhaps. There are many answers to these questions each of which has certain insights into God’s revelation and certain gaping holes. Which is correct? I just don’t know, but whichever way God be praised for His wisdom and power evident in creation!
No comments:
Post a Comment