Evo Schevo - September 2005
Had recently attended a course in NIE about evolution and diversity of organisms. While the topic is fascinating, especially the studies of homology and phylogeny, I cannot help but dispute the theory.
Many pro-evolutionists, such as Richard Dawkins (author of The Selfish Gene and The Blind Watchmaker), while not making their views known in so many words, sass the Bible and Christian theories. For the story of Creation conflicts with the evolutionary view that we're all descended, by random chance or something close to it, in contrast to the concept of intended, intelligent and deliberate design that the Bible propagates.
There are, of course, plenty of Christian aplogetics sites that argue the case much better than I can: the CS Lewis Society Online, Stand To Reason, the Ultimate Christian Apologetics site, and plenty more one can get to by just googling.
All I have to say, though, is this:
The intricacy and beauty of the surrounding world leaves me no doubt that the world is a result of creation, and not of mere accident. Look at the Golden Gate Bridge, for instance:
What would your first thought be?
'What a marvellous feat of engineering!' or
'Wave action's what caused the stacking of all these timbers and poles into a bridge.'
Intricate and well-fashioned structures almost automatically assume the presence of a creator or designer. And yet, the smallest cell and molecules in our bodies are way more complex than even these. It's almost as if God is showing off His creativity and that He's the Origin of all beauty and precision; His creative genius is so abundant that it's evident even in the smallest designs that people haven't deigned to look at for the past thousands of years. It's almost like quality finishing in a home or a designer suit; no matter how closely you inspect a piece, you find that detail is precise to the last lovingly hand-carved fresco and the last stitch. And now, even as we acquire the technology to understand His creation better and better, humankind finds, increasingly, that at every level, His creation makes perfect sense.
It simply brings to mind Romans 1:18-23:
"18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things."
I can understand and accept natural selection as a key in micro-evolution, where species adapt to their environments over time. But macro-evolution, extending and extrapolating that theory back to primordial soup? Read this:
"We have seen that living things are too improbable and too beautifully 'designed' to have come into existence by chance. How, then, did they come into existence? The answer, Darwin's answer, is by gradual, step- by-step transformations from simple beginnings, from primordial entities sufficiently simple to have come into existence by chance. Each successive change in the gradual evolutionary process was simple enough, relative to its predecessor, to have arisen by chance. But the whole sequence of cumulative steps constitutes anything but a chance process, when you consider the complexity of the final end-product relative to the original starting point. The cumulative process is directed by nonrandom survival. The purpose of this chapter is to demonstrate the power of this cumulative selection as a fundamentally nonrandom process."
I don't agree. Do you? That entire sequence of events, of accumulating mutations and having them all be beneficial as well as significant enough to render a change in an organism's phenotype, smacks less of a 'random event' than a miracle.
There is, by the by, in the Selfish Gene, the promulgation of the argument that we exist as mere carriers for our DNA - "that living organisms exist for the benefit of DNA rather than the other way around" - that we're purposeless, passive receptacles for the passing down of genetic information. To that, I say:
“ Before I formed you in the womb I knew you; Before you were born I sanctified you; I ordained you a prophet to the nations.” - Jeremiah 1:5
But the idea that one or several of the DNA molecules in my body might be a few thousands of years old is intriguing. Heh.
Many pro-evolutionists, such as Richard Dawkins (author of The Selfish Gene and The Blind Watchmaker), while not making their views known in so many words, sass the Bible and Christian theories. For the story of Creation conflicts with the evolutionary view that we're all descended, by random chance or something close to it, in contrast to the concept of intended, intelligent and deliberate design that the Bible propagates.
There are, of course, plenty of Christian aplogetics sites that argue the case much better than I can: the CS Lewis Society Online, Stand To Reason, the Ultimate Christian Apologetics site, and plenty more one can get to by just googling.
All I have to say, though, is this:
The intricacy and beauty of the surrounding world leaves me no doubt that the world is a result of creation, and not of mere accident. Look at the Golden Gate Bridge, for instance:
What would your first thought be?
'What a marvellous feat of engineering!' or
'Wave action's what caused the stacking of all these timbers and poles into a bridge.'
Intricate and well-fashioned structures almost automatically assume the presence of a creator or designer. And yet, the smallest cell and molecules in our bodies are way more complex than even these. It's almost as if God is showing off His creativity and that He's the Origin of all beauty and precision; His creative genius is so abundant that it's evident even in the smallest designs that people haven't deigned to look at for the past thousands of years. It's almost like quality finishing in a home or a designer suit; no matter how closely you inspect a piece, you find that detail is precise to the last lovingly hand-carved fresco and the last stitch. And now, even as we acquire the technology to understand His creation better and better, humankind finds, increasingly, that at every level, His creation makes perfect sense.
It simply brings to mind Romans 1:18-23:
"18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things."
I can understand and accept natural selection as a key in micro-evolution, where species adapt to their environments over time. But macro-evolution, extending and extrapolating that theory back to primordial soup? Read this:
"We have seen that living things are too improbable and too beautifully 'designed' to have come into existence by chance. How, then, did they come into existence? The answer, Darwin's answer, is by gradual, step- by-step transformations from simple beginnings, from primordial entities sufficiently simple to have come into existence by chance. Each successive change in the gradual evolutionary process was simple enough, relative to its predecessor, to have arisen by chance. But the whole sequence of cumulative steps constitutes anything but a chance process, when you consider the complexity of the final end-product relative to the original starting point. The cumulative process is directed by nonrandom survival. The purpose of this chapter is to demonstrate the power of this cumulative selection as a fundamentally nonrandom process."
- Chapter 3, The Blind Watchmaker
I don't agree. Do you? That entire sequence of events, of accumulating mutations and having them all be beneficial as well as significant enough to render a change in an organism's phenotype, smacks less of a 'random event' than a miracle.
There is, by the by, in the Selfish Gene, the promulgation of the argument that we exist as mere carriers for our DNA - "that living organisms exist for the benefit of DNA rather than the other way around" - that we're purposeless, passive receptacles for the passing down of genetic information. To that, I say:
“ Before I formed you in the womb I knew you; Before you were born I sanctified you; I ordained you a prophet to the nations.” - Jeremiah 1:5
But the idea that one or several of the DNA molecules in my body might be a few thousands of years old is intriguing. Heh.
posted by joyinthelord @ 9:58 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home