Kirkbio.com
Home
|
||||||||||||||
|
EVOLUTION |
||||||||||||||
|
á
My
views on science and faith á
Development
of my views on Creation vs Evolution á
What
role does Òchildlike faithÓ play? á
What
about the second lay of thermodynamics? á
How
reliable is radiometric dating? á
What
about irreducible complexity (the eye, a flagella)? REFERENCES á
Ayala, Francisco J. Darwin's Gift to Science and Religion
(great for those interested in the science) á
Collins, Francis S. The Language of God (one of the
best; author worked on the human genome project and used to be an atheist;
good read for both Christians and others) á
Falk, Darrel R. Coming
to Peace with Science (not as much science, but still some) á
Kirk, Rebecca L. Genesis
1:1-2:3 and Enuma Elish: Ideological
Warfare Between Judah and Babylon download á
Moreland, J. P. Love
Your God With All Your Mind (not specifically related to creation and
evolution) á
McCalla, Arthur The Creationist Debate (more of a
philosophical review of the history of Biblical interpretation and this
issue) á
Wiens, Roger C. Radiometric Dating; A Christian Perspective
(available at: http://www.asa3.org/ASA/RESOURCES/WIENS.html) |
I was born to two parents who brought me up in the church. We were there every time the doors were open. My friends, heroes, and relatives were all from church. Right before I entered Junior High, I went to a summer camp where I realized that God didn't have grandkids...only kids of his own. I could not be right with God simply by doing what my parents told me to do. I needed my own relationship with Him. That was 21 years ago! Since that time, I have grown, developed, and been tested in my faith. I went to a Christian Jr. High and High School where I learned a lot about the Bible and got a really good foundation. I attended a Christian College where I majored in General Science and minored in Education. Then I spent two years teaching at a missionary kid school in Honduras, Central America. I saw God work miracles there! Then, I returned to Washington, got a job in Olympia and moved here. Recently, I have enjoyed experiencing and worshiping God in the adventures He has brought my way...from setting up and lighting off professional firework displays, to hiking on Mt. Rainier, to learning Spanish in various Central American countries, to SCUBA diving in the Puget Sound...God is everywhere! Scientists are an odd bunch. They are able to live with unanswered questions. Why the small number of human genes? How does the inside of the Earth work? What controls organ regeneration? How did the first cell form? These questions are not problematic to them. Instead, they are embraced and studied. Many people, however, do not like unanswered questions. Instead, they assign every unknown to the work of God. Then, when science advances, these people then have to choose between science and faith. These two words, however, are separate. Science concerns the natural world. Religion/faith concerns the meaning and purpose of life. They DO NOT need to be contradictory! In religion, do we hypothesize on heavenÕs physical attributes? NoÉthe physical realm is ScienceÕs domain. Instead, religion concerns itself with how one goes to heaven. Another example, 3000 years ago, when the Psalms were written, not much was known about the science of fetal development. Ps. 139 speaks of someone being "woven together in the depths of the Earth". As science developed, we now know that there is an egg that is fertilized by sperm, the embryo implants into the uterine lining and through a series of hormonal signals and really complicated steps, a baby grows. Science can explain how this happens, but it doesn't remove the awe that it inspires, or the fact that I still consider myself to be created by God. The same is true with Evolution and the creation of the world. Just because science can explain how this world came to be through evolution, it doesn't lessen my belief in God or in His power. Faith cannot be based on Science...nor vice versa. They are separate ways knowing. Also, the belief in creation or evolution is not a salvation issue. To be saved, one needs to believe in the existence of God and His work through Jesus Christ, the forgiveness of sins, and the relationship we can have with God through the help of the Holy Spirit. Salvation has nothing to do with one's belief of the Earth's history. Development of my views of Creation
vs. Evolution: In Jr. High and High School, I went to a Christian school. My Biology teacher had just earned a Masters from the Institute for Creation Research. I learned the creationist view of evolution as well as the "Evidences for Creation". I was confident that if I ever met an Evolutionist (said with a bit of a shudder), I would be able to sway them with my knowledge and lead them to Christ. Then, I went to a Christian college. I had the option of going to a Creation/Evolution debate and I thought, "I'm overly prepared for that!" At the end of the debate, one of my professors told us that he was a Christian AND an Evolutionist. I was amazed! I was SURE that if anyone honestly looked at the evidence for creation, they would immediately denounce evolution and turn to Christ. For every point I brought up, however, my professor had a well-reasoned argument. I started feeling like a hypocrite...why should someone consider creation if I would not consider evolution. So, I started considering the evidence. I found it was overwhelming! This did NOT change my faith, just my understanding of history. After graduating, I tried to get a job at a Christian school. After a phone interview where the topic came up, I received an email stating that it is a shame when the devil invades the thinking of God's people. With prayer and research, however, he was sure God would convict me. This stung! Unfortunately, it was not the last of its kind from a Christian brother or sister. I have not changed my viewpoint...I am now, similar to my professor, a Christian AND Evolutionist. Because of how my Christian family reacts to this news, however, I rarely bring it up unless I am among close friends or directly asked. Although this is an important issue for me, it is NOT a salvation issue. It is also a very divisive issue, which is not something I want to do in the church. The theory of evolution makes a lot of sense to me. It helps me understand the new things I learn in Biology. It is also a topic that comes up weekly if not daily in my life. It does not, in any way, limit my awe at the complexity of God's creation. EVERY time I see a video of mitosis and I see those chromosomes separate, I give praise. When I learn the names of different native plants while hiking, or see the diversity of marine life while scuba diving, I am amazed. I know how it happened, but I can't help but give praise to God. This belief also gives me a better understanding of my LOVING God and Savior. If I may quote from a book: "The natural world abounds in catastrophes, disasters, imperfections, dysfunctions, suffering, and cruelty. Tsunamis bring destruction and death; volcanic eruptions erased Pompeii and Herculaneum, killing all their citizens; floods and droughts bring ruin to farmers. The human jaw is poorly designed, lions devour their prey, malaria parasites kill millions of humans every year and make 500 million sick. I do not attribute all this misery, cruelty, and destruction to the specific design of the Creator. About 20 percent of all human pregnancies end in spontaneous abortion during the first two months. That is 20 million natural abortions every year. I shudder in terror at the thought that some people of faith would implicitly attribute this calamity to the Creator's faulty design. I rather see it as a consequence of the clumsy ways of the evolutionary process. The God of revelation and faith is a God of love and mercy, and of wisdom. Darwin's theory of evolution is a gift to science, and to religion as well." (Ayala, Darwin's Gift) Much of this is from my sisterÕs (Rebecca Kirk) MasterÕs thesis research (download). A priest probably wrote Genesis, just before or during his return to Judah. The Israelites had fought the Babylonians and lost. They were taken to Babylon and lived as slaves. During this time, they were influenced by their captors and began adopting their traditions and customs. (see 2 Chronicles 36:15-23, Ezra 9:1-2, Nehemiah 8:1 ff, and Joel-Malachi) As they were returning to their homeland, the Israelites were feeling powerless and defeated. They needed to be reminded of who their God was, who they were as a people, and how to live in community. This was the purpose of Genesis. It was written to give details on how the community was to live (see pgs. 12-13). When interpreting the Bible, itÕs important to remember WHY the text was written. This text was NOT written to be a scientific text. It was, however written to let GodÕs people know that God is still supreme. It was also written to teach the community how to live as free peopleÉto observe the Sabbath for example. In my opinion, I see this as a very poetic text. Repetition, or symmetry is often seen in poetry. Take, for example Psalm 91. Compare the following verses: 2&9, 3&10, 4&11, 5&13, 9&14, 10&15. The themes in the first 9 verses are repeated in the last verses. I see the same thing in Genesis 1.
This, again leads me to believe that this is NOT written to be a scientific text, it is poetry. What about Ex nihilo, didnÕt God create this world out of nothing? Well, Ex nihilo is Latin, Genesis was originally written in Hebrew. This was added later. Also, if you want to be really picky, God commands the sea and earth to bring forth animals (vs 26-30). God gave the power of creation to the Earth. CouldnÕt this have manifested itself in what we now call ÒevolutionÓ? (see pgs. 19-20 for more discussion on Ex nihilo) Arthur McCalla wrote a book called The Creationist Debate. This gives a great review of the history of the interpretation of the Bible in regards to the ÒcreationÓ issue. Take the word ÒJerusalemÓ for example. It can be interpreted as the literal city. It can also refer to the Church of Christ, the human soul, and the analogy of heaven (the New Jerusalem). The Bible does not deserve a merely literal translation. This book discusses the history of the interpretation of Genesis 1-2. Care must be taken when interpreting the Bible. This is why the purpose of the writing was discussed above. This is a very important tool when interpreting. Also, the Bible was written for the understanding of the time. For example, Joshua 10:12-13 refers to the sun moving and the earth standing still. We know this is not true, but we can excuse it because we also know that this was the understanding of the day. It is interesting that the creation story in Genesis 1-2 is very similar to other stories of the day (see pgs. 16). The Creationist Debate also raised some interesting questions: á Where did the floodwaters go? (pg. 22) á
How
were there rivers in the Garden of Eden without rain? (pg.
23) Especially if there was a canopy keeping the earth tropical in nature so
there would be no melting glaciers. á
How
did the Native Americans get to the Americas? (pg.
26) á
The
date for the creation of the world was early on a Sunday evening, October 23rd,
4004 BCE. (pg. 33) What role does Òchildlike faithÓ play? I was in a Sunday school class discussion on this topic and one lady in the front said, ÒAll these specifics confuse me. I just rely on my childlike faithÓ. What surprised me even more was the general agreement in the room with this statement. The following few thoughts and quotes are from the book Love Your God With All Your Mind by J. P. Moreland. C.S. Lewis said ÒHe [Christ] wants a childÕs heart, but a grown-upÕs head.Ó (pg. 103) Isaiah 1:18 portrays a God who invites His creatures to come and reason together with Him (pg. 44). Unfortunately, this does not seem to be the norm in many of todayÕs churches. A 1980 Gallup Poll on Religion stated, ÒWe are having a revival of feelings but not of the knowledge of God. The church today is more guided by feelings than by convictions. We value enthusiasm more than informed commitment.Ó (pg. 19) Although this book is not specifically about science, pg. 145 got me to thinking about it. If science is used to explain a story in the Bible (Moses and the Plagues, or Moses and the Red Sea for example) it is virtuous. If it disproves a story (Creation) it is villainous. How can it be both? Science is not evil or bad. After all, wisdom comes from studying ants as well as learning scriptures (Proverbs 6) (pg. 54). The evidence for evolution is far broader than what I want to write here. There is more detail in the book Coming to Peace with Science by Darrel R. Falk (fossil record, geographical distribution, and genes). Following are the 6 main evidences that resonate with me: á Fossils (also, locations of rock types and mountain ranges can span continents, however, when the continents are put together like a puzzle, they correlate) á
Geographic
distribution of fossils and living animals (marsupials in Australia only or
beaver/capybara distribution for examples) á
Homologous
structures point to a common ancestry (human arm, dolphin fin, horse leg,
bird wing, etc.) A good engineer would come up with different structures for
flying and going along the ground (airplane wing/wheel), but in nature we see
patterns (bird wing/horse leg), which are not the most efficient, but they
work. á
Embryonic
development á
Vestigial
structures seem to be remnants of an evolutionary past (Why else would a
whale have a pelvis, a blind cave animal have sightless eyes, we have wisdom
teeth and a blind spot?) á
DNA
comparisons seem to be new instructions added to old ones. I realize this is a very poor description of each of the above evidences for evolution. However, explanations are readily available in the book by Falk or any basic ÒGoogleÓ search. What about the second law of thermodynamics? The second law applies only to close systems, such as the universe as a whole. Order and complexity can increase in local, open systems due to an influx of energy. This is evident in the development of individual organisms, in which biochemical reactions are powered by energy derived ultimately from the sun. (from Evolutionary Biology, Futuyma, Douglas J., pg. 760) Chance could not produce complex structures. This is true, but natural selection is a deterministic, not a random, process. The random processes of evolution, mutation and genetic drift, do not in themselves result in the evolution of complexity, as far was we know. Indeed, when natural selection is relaxed, complex structures, such as the eyes of cave-dwelling animals, slowly degenerate, due in part to fixation of neural mutations by genetic drift. (from Evolutionary Biology, Futuyma, Douglas J., pg. 761) How reliable is radiometric dating? There is a wonderful paper by Dr. Roger C. Wiens available online. It is called ÒRadiometric Dating; A Christian PerspectiveÓ. In it, Dr. Wiens discusses the verification of radiometric dating. Tree rings go back about 11,000 years, stalagmite layers go back about 40,000 years, and ice cores go back about 100,000-160,000 years ago. Scientists may also use silt layers in lakes, coral growth rings, and another of the 40 radiometric isotopes to confirm results. If you are interested in the scientific details, I would strongly encourage you to read his paper. What about irreducible complexity (the eye and a flagella)? I have often heard from Creationists that the eye (or bacteria flagella) is so complex and interconnected, that it could not have happened by chance all at once, and the parts by themselves would have no use. DarwinÕs Gift to Science and Religion by Francisco Ayala has a great explanation of the eye (pg. 147) and the flagella (pg. 148). This is my favorite book on the evolution/creation topicÉespecially for those with a science background. On pg. 147, Ayala shows diagrams of several different eyes. Although they are not necessarily related to each other, one can see how simple, partial structures would still yield an evolutionary advantage to the organism. Ò[Eyes] have independently evolved at least 40 times (pg. 145).Ó They are a very useful structure. A flagella (tail-like structure on a bacteria) is made of several different proteins all working together. It, like the eye, is also a very complex structure. The proteins vary, however, among different types of bacteriaÉwhich makes me think that the complexity, although amazing, is variableÉit can change and the structure will still work. Also, several of the proteins are very similar to a poison-injecting system of another bacteria. The point is that it CAN be reduced to parts that work in one bacteria or another bacteria for one purpose or another. On the road to Damascus, Saul came face to face with God. He was also blinded for three days. I believe during those three days he had to re-think everything he had studied and ÒknewÓ up to that point. He had to re-interpret all the scriptures he had memorized. At the end of this process, he was given a new name, Paul, and had a new mission (Acts 9-10). I had to do a similar re-evaluation of my views of creation, evolution, and the Bible when I went to college. I continue to define, evaluate, learn, and consider topics regarding this issue. Some people rarely run across this issue in their daily lives – they have to deal with other issues. For me, I deal with this weekly, if not daily. The above are my thoughts, opinions, readings, musings, etc. up to this point. I hope they have given you something to consider, or encouragement in your own dealings with this issue. In the end, the one thing we should be able to agree with is the amazing world God has given us to enjoy. |
|||||||||||||