And This Bacillus thuringiensis Is My
Great-Great-Great-Granddaddy...
Luke
Jordan
Senior
Seminar
December 6, 2001
Intro
Who or what really is our greatest of
great ancestors? Most major religions
and early groups of people have an answer to this common question. The Greek myths declare that only Geia (the
Earth) and a great sea of Chaos were in the beginning, and in a soap opera
fashion the gods eventually came forth, who eventually created humans (Bierlein
47-8). The Chippewa/Algonquin Native
Americans believe that the great Earth Mother had two sons, a good one and a
bad one that ended up creating the plants, animals, and humans (61).
In the Christian, scientific Western
Hemisphere, we believe in two possible answers -- one, that we descended from
Adam, who was created from the mingling of the dirt of the ground with God's
breath into His image (a doctrine held by religious Creationism), or two, that
we evolved from monkeys which evolved from bacteria, which evolved from
non-living chemicals and lightning (the scientific theory of evolution). These two theories both have credibility -
the Bible is one of the oldest and most extensive historical documents we have,
recorded with great precision, while evolution is very logical and builds on
numerous scientific disciplines.
Yet creation and evolution seem
diametrically opposed. If we were
created randomly and purposelessly, as evolution suggests, then the creation
account of a sculptor molding his clay to make man appears erroneous. So scientists often call the Genesis account
a “myth” – a story conceived by early man to explain away his questions. Christians are often offended by
implications like these, and end up attacking science’s claims. In turn, many scientists feel distaste for
people who don't accept their elegant theory and
their mounds of evidence, and thus reject the others' view. Though a war has been established pinning
these two theories against each other, this dichotomy is actually a false one. Christians do not need to give up their faith
and scientists can start believing in God.
These two clashing but persuasive theories, creation and evolution, can
be reconciled. First, these
theories need to be defined.
Definition
Evolution is the theory that all
living organisms can be traced back to a common ancestor, which came into being
from non-living elements, by natural laws.
Darwin’s contribution to this theory was the mechanism by which species
could evolve – natural selection. This
mechanism says that certain factors in an organism's environment can cause a
change to occur from generation to generation.
There are three types of natural selection: stabilizing selection (the
mutants are knocked out of a population), directional selection (there is a
shift in a certain trait of a population), and disruptive selection (in which a
population is broken up and each population changes separately).
As laid out nicely in the book, Parallel Myths, by J. F. Bierlein
(84-7), general scientific theory as to how life began goes something like this
(although new fossils constantly tweak the dates):
Precambrian
Period: the earth is 4.7 billion years old, and 2.7
billion years ago the first life starts in shallow pools. The first photosynthetic plant life fossils
have been dated to 2.5 billion years ago.
The Cambrian
Period: Life is anaerobic and once the level of
oxygen is one one-hundredth what it is today, referred to as the critical level
for the development of life, organisms become aerobic. This period takes place 600 million years
ago, and there is a life explosion in the seas. Land is not entirely separate from the seas.
The
Mississippian Period: 355 million years ago, sharks and amphibians
become greatly developed, as well as large-scale trees and see ferns. Climate is warm and humid.
The
Pennsylvanian Period: 310 million years ago, reptiles appear but
amphibians dominate. Gymnosperm plants,
vast forests, and swamps are numerous.
Coal and petroleum deposits form.
The Permian
Period: 280 million years ago the earth cools and
land becomes drier. With this change in
climate many species become extinct.
The Triassic
Period: 220 million years ago. Dinosaurs and gymnosperms dominate the
landscape, and tree ferns die out.
The Jurassic
Period: 181 million years ago mammals and birds
appear. This is the great period of the
dinosaurs.
The Cretaceous
Period: 135 million years ago modern mammals and
monocotyledonous plants appear. At the
end of this period a great extinction takes place among the dinosaurs.
The Paleocene
Epoch: 65 million years ago placental mammals first
appear.
The Eocene
Epoch: 54 million years ago hoofed animals and
carnivores appear.
The Oligocene
Epoch: 36 million years ago, the climate becomes
warmer and most modern species of animals start appearing.
The Miocene
Epoch: 25 million years ago anthropoid (like
humans) apes show up, most mammals take shape like the ones we see today.
The Pliocene
Epoch: 11 million years ago man is evolving and
forests are giving way to growing grasslands.
The Pleistocene
Epoch: 1 million years ago human social life
appears amid glaciation and many forms of life go extinct.
The
Recent Epoch: 11,000 years ago "civilized"
society began
The Biblical account of creation,
found in Genesis chapters one and two (see Appendix I for full story) goes
something like this. In chapter one God
creates the heavens and the earth. Then
the earth is waste and void and darkness is “upon the face of the deep”. So God fixes it up and populates it in six
days by his speaking. He first speaks
forth light and darkness, which he calls Night and Day. This is day one. Then he divides different levels of water on top of each other,
one of which he calls Heaven. Day
two. Then he makes dry land appear,
which he calls Earth, and the waters he calls Seas. He tells the earth to make grass, seed bearing plants, fruit
bearing trees and these plants spring forth.
Day three. Then God makes the
sun, moon, and stars. Day four. Then God makes creatures in the sea and
birds in the sky. Day five. God then makes the cattle and the beasts of
the earth. Finally God makes man and
woman “in our image, after our likeness”.
This man is given rule over all the all the earth and animals. Day six.
Chapter two begins with day seven.
Now that everything is finished, God rests.
In chapter two, the story is retold,
with more verbal flourish, and apparently with a little different
chronology. In the days when the earth
and heavens had been created, before plants or animals, a mist comes up from
the earth and waters the land. God then
“form[s] man of the dust of the ground and breathe[s] into his nostrils the
breath of life” (Gen 2:7). God plants
the Garden of Eden, where there are all sorts of trees with fruit (two in
particular – the Tree of Life and the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil) and
puts man there to live. God says, “It
is not good that the man should be alone” (Gen 2:18), so he starts creating all
the animals. He brings them to the man,
and the man gives them all names. But
man still doesn’t have his partner. So
when the man goes to sleep, God reaches in and pulls out a rib and closes up
the flesh. From the rib, God makes
woman. The man replies, “This is now
bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh:
she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.” (Gen 2:23)
And this is the reason that men and women get married.
History –
Rounding Out the Definitions
A short history of the debate between
these two theories sheds some light on how these theories came to be what they
are, why they are valued by each side, and why they are our two main theories
(no other creation stories have been in the limelight in the United States of
America and Europe).
Our scientific knowledge today stems from
the scientific revolution in Europe during the fifteenth century. When science was just beginning (and even up
into Darwin’s day in the nineteenth century), almost all of the scientists
believed in the Biblical creation story.
Originally they had very few fossils and the layers of earth hadn’t been
studied yet. Because European culture
was dominantly Christian, and the Bible was the only source they had that
described the beginning times, many accepted this account (the account is
pretty logical, too – simpler organisms are created before more complex
organisms). So scientists looked around
nature and saw God as the source.
However, through three disciplines –
geology, paleontology and taxonomy (the classification of animal and plant
species) – early beliefs of a literal six-day creation story Bible increasingly
became challenged.
The agreed starting date of the earth was
4004 B.C., as determined by Archbishop Ussher, 200 years before Darwin
(Blackmore and Page 27). Since the
creation story talks about six days of creation, and Psalm 90 says a thousand
years are but a day to God, then the six days of creation would be followed by
six thousand years, many believed.
Using this logic, Martin Luther, a leader during the Reformation,
figured Jesus came four thousand years after creation, and a final two thousand
years were left.
But discoveries by geologists (people who
study the earth) began to show an earth much older than 6000 years. After Ussher's death in 1656, naturalist
John Ray raised some disturbing questions, such as how could a buried forest have
been at the bottom of a sea and then exposed on dry land again, and how could
mountains be formed in such a short time (27-8). Abraham Werner, an influential biologist, later showed that the
crust of the earth was a bunch of successive layers, meaning that the earth was
older than figured. Both Ray and Werner
still believed in God and creation (Werner believed the days of creation were
not literal days but periods of time), but the public was rattled. To them it appeared he was refuting the
Bible’s authenticity (28-9).
Another seeming attack on the creation
story came from interpretation of fossils.
Georges Cuvier (1769-1832), France's leading scientist, by observing
fossils, declared that some species had become extinct.
Georges Louis Leclerc, Comte de Buffon,
also believed in an old earth. He
theorized that an asteroid smashing into the sun created the earth, which then
took 75,000 years to cool. He was then
forced by the theologians of his day to retract his heretical views in his
fourth edition of Histoire Naturelle
(33-5).
Scientists had begun to think the earth
was very old. Some proposed the earth
was formed with water (which resembles the Genesis story and is the scientific
view today), while others believed with volcanoes. Some believed many catastrophes had shaped the earth (like the
great Flood in Genesis), while others believed natural laws had molded it over
long spans of time. Whichever theory
was correct didn't matter – an old, old earth had been discovered. And though the public shouted heresy at
first, they eventually came to agree with this discovery.
While geology helped change people's views
of how old the earth was, biology was changing people’s views of how the
animals came to be. Like the
geologists, the biologists faced derision by the Christian public as well as
many scientists.
Taxonomy helped solidify belief in
creation of animals by God, because by the way they classified animals, each
species seemed to have its God-ordered place.
A long line of taxonomists believed in this “fixed” status of
species. Aristotle, the famous Greek
philosopher, was the first believer. He
believed that animals showed different levels of complexities, and could be
classified thus (11). This view of his
set the view for the later taxonomists of the Renaissance.
An English clergyman, John Ray
(1627-1705), like Aristotle, promoted static species. He classified a large number of plants and wrote a book about
them entitled, The Wisdom of God
Manifested in the Works of Creation (14-5).
Two years after Ray died, the greatest of
all systematists, Carl Linnaeus (1707-1778), was born. He classified every species known at his
time into his famous System Naturae. He believed he was naming the animals just
as the Biblical Adam had done, and so called himself the "Second
Adam" (15-20). However, while
these scientists helped cause popular opinion to believe that species were
fixed, some scientists were beginning to believe otherwise.
Other scientists saw species as shades on
a spectrum. Le Comte de Buffon
(1707-88), who wrote the large Histoire
Naturelle, was the first to speak forth this new view. Society did not like his unorthodox views,
and Buffon had to recant in one of his later publications (20-2). Yet Buffon’s new view changed the way
scientists looked at animals, a baby step in evolutionary thought.
Next came Erasmus Darwin, Charles Darwin's
grandfather, who was one of the first to actually argue evolutionary behavior
in animals. He theorized in his medical
textbook that viruses and diseases were constantly changing, but his theory was
more speculative than factual (44-5).
Then Frenchman Jean Baptiste Pierre
Antoine de Monet, Chevalier de Lamarck (1749-1829) came out and argued for
evolution of species. He theorized that
an organism acquires traits in its lifetime and then passes those traits on to
its progeny. His views were strongly
rejected by the English, who dubbed him the "French Atheist". Though his theory has been proven false, he
was right about one thing: organisms do
pass on traits to their offspring (47-50).
In England 1844 an anonymous book was
introduced to the public advocating evolution.
The author, Robert Chambers (1802-71) published anonymously to protect
the reputation of his profitable business.
Though lacking scientific worth, the wildly popular book, Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation,
was useful to Darwin because it opened the British public up to the theory of
evolution (51-2).
Another influencer in evolutionary thought
was Georges Cuvier. He formed a new classification
system which classified organisms according to how they functioned in their
natural habitats. His system took them
out of their rigid classification done by Linnaeus, helping evolutionists
explain how organisms change: by their
environments (55-6).
All of these seeds of evolutionary thought
were planted in one man – Charles Darwin.
Before we talk about Darwin, it is useful to know the context of his
time, the Victorian era of the nineteenth century.
During the Victorian era belief of God was
fervent in society. In 1802, William
Paley (1743-1805) published Natural
Theology, subtitled "Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the
Deity collected from the Appearances of Nature" (23). Paley's main point was that all the design
we see in nature reveals a Great Designer.
The Victorian crowd loved this logic.
"Every Victorian lady could reel off names of ferns or fungi, every
middle-class drawing room possessed a shell collection, a butterfly cabinet or
an aquarium. Newspapers ran columns on
natural history, natural history books were almost as popular as Dickens, and
every clergyman nursed ambitions to write such works" (25).
Charles Darwin, a Christian who was taught
by many other Christian scientists, brooded upon the views of evolution that
were arising in the world. At the age
of 22 he went on five-year voyage on the Beagle
around the world, sailing around South America and the lonely islands of the
Galapagos (61). On this voyage he made
many observations about fossils, animals, land, and plants, filling "1300
pages with geological notes, 24 notebooks with impressions, 368 pages with
zoology, and a diary of nearly 800 pages" (60). However, he did not formulate his groundbreaking theory of
natural selection yet.
After spending many years doing a
reclassification of snails, he came back to his notes. A theory had formulated in his head and he
spent 15 additional years gathering evidence to make sure his theory had
sufficient backing. His labor
culminated in his book the On the Origin
of Species by means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races
in the Struggle for Life (1859), in which he presented the mechanism of
natural selection. His theory of how
evolution could occur was the answer scientists had been looking for. Evolutionary theory now had a solid
foundation.
This new theory rocked Europe and tremors
from it are still being felt today.
While many scientists, like the vocal Thomas Huxley, immediately bought
into this new theory, many theologians immediately began attacking this theory,
which seemed to refute God's place in creation (and therefore His
existence). The debates have lasted
even up to today, as in the case of the Scopes trial, in which a teacher was
put on trial as to whether or not he could teach evolution in school. A group of scientists today strongly
believes in a literal interpretation of the Genesis account (a belief termed
"scientific creationism").
These people usually consider evolution supporters to be atheists and
heretics.
On the other side of the coin are many
scientists, who treat the evolutionary theory picture of how the world came
into being (life evolving from no life, evolving to more complex organisms,
evolving to humans) as infallible. Often
scientists in this group mock the Fundamental Christians who refute the science
behind evolutionary theory. These
Christians have set themselves up for attack by not believing in the validity
of science's tools. The scientists then
have no problem dismissing this "crazy" group's book of how the world
began. The Genesis account gets turned
into just another picture book of myths.
For example Tim Berra, who wrote Evolution
and the Myth of Creationism,
mocked President Reagan for being uneducated and manipulated when the President
said if evolution was to be taught in schools, then so should the Biblical
story of creation, "which is not a theory but the Biblical story of
creation" (Berra 123). Carl
Sagan, has put their view succinctly:
"The Cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be" (Wright
13). Scientists argue that the
evolution account is a fact, not a theory.
Christians argue that is it a theory not a fact. Which is it? Who it right? Let's
evaluate the two theories.
Evolution
Evaluated
Science is trying to construct a picture
of the past, and has evidence from many sources. The scientific approach is like a crime scene investigation. The scientists are like detectives with mounds
of evidence trying to determine what happened the night of the crime. They look at all of the evidence gathered
and reconstruct the crime scene.
Whenever new evidence is gathered (such as new fossils or new sciences
like genetics), details are tweaked, but for the most part they know what
happened. The theory of evolution is
the result of numerous disciplines in science discovering lots of evidence and
drawing up a logical picture of what happened.
Paleontology (the study of fossils) aided
by geology, has been one of the strongest supports for the theory of
evolution. Fossils are a footprint of prehistoric
life, and the footprints we have recorded today tell a story of increasingly
complex animals over great periods of time.
A fossil is made by an animal or plant
falling to the ground and getting buried by sediment, like volcanic ash or silt
at the bottom of a lake. This sediment
envelope must withstand the crushing, folding, and erosion that takes place in
rock formations over millions of years (Berra 32-3). The only problem is that the chances of an animal ending up in
this process are not great. Scavengers,
bacteria, or natural forces often claim the bodies of fallen organisms. In addition, these fossils have to be dug up
and noticed by archaeologists to be added to the fossil record.
Geology and chemistry come into play to
read these fossils. Geology has
revealed that the earth's crust is composed of many layers, which are called
"strata". Newer layers are
stacked on top of older layers. Fossils
are found in these layers, and often certain species are found only in certain
layers. The lower the layer a fossil is
found in, the older that fossil is (Berra 36).
But how old is the fossil. Here
chemistry comes into play.
All rocks are composed of minerals, and
many minerals contain radioactive isomers, such as uranium. These isomers act as a clock. They have a "half-life" that is
characteristic to each material. If a
half-life is 1,000 years, then every thousand years half as much of the
material is converted to a different material (e.g. uranium 238 decays to lead
236 with a half-life of 4.5 billion years).
By measuring how much of each material is there, a date can be placed on
the rock's origin. The theory is simple but in practice is difficult because
the amount of isotopes being measured is very small (Berra 37).
Some Christians accept fossil dating to be
correct but argue that the fossil record testifies against evolution. They claim that transitional fossils between
major categories of animals are not evident, such as between fish and land creatures,
or between land creatures and birds.
Even Darwin was bothered that there weren't more of these fossils
(Blackmore and Page 100).
But some scientists argue that there are
many transitional fossils (Berra 40).
One such one is that of the Archaeopteryx,
a crow-sized animal about 150 million years old. This bird has features of both reptiles and bird, which leads
scientists to believe it is the link between the two. Creationists have two arguments against this fossil. Either it is a hoax (although 6 complete
fossils of it have been found [41]), or that there are no fossils that show a
more basic form of the feather, which has a very intricate design and couldn't
just happen all at once.
Genetics, morphology, and biogeography,
however, also seem to point in the direction of a common ancestor. Genetics has revealed that all species of
plants and animals have in their cells a complex code called DNA (some have
RNA). This DNA codes for RNA, which
codes for proteins, which are the role players in creating and maintaining an
organism's body. Different species have
different amounts of this DNA code (generally the more complex a species, the
more DNA it has). Also species that
look similar and are grouped into species and genuses and families by us have much
of the similar DNA. For example, cows
and horses have more DNA that is alike than do cows and ducks. When a tree of DNA is then constructed by
similarity between DNA, a remarkably similar tree to the evolutionary one
appears.
Morphology, the study of the appendages on
different organisms, also backs up the evolutionary tree. One of the things appendages reveal to us is
common ancestry. If two organisms share
bones of similar size and positioning, they are probably more closely related
by ancestry. The morphological data
between species shows a trend that matches the evolutionary tree. Another piece of evidence that morphology
reveals are vestigial structures.
Evolutionists claim these structures are non-useful organs in a species
that weren't phased out when that species evolved. Whales and boas, for example, have traces of hind legs, which
would suggest they evolved from terrestrial origins. Humans have some too:
tail vertebrae, ear-wiggling muscles, wisdom teeth, a third eyelid, and
an appendix (Berra 21-2).
Another scientific discipline, embryology
(the study of embryos), also seems to indicate evolution occurred. All vertebrate (fish, bird, reptile,
amphibian, mammal) embryos look basically the same in the early stages of
growth when the vital organs start developing (ontogeny). Vertebrates that don't breath with gills
have gill structures just like the vertebrates that use gills. This might suggest that all vertebrates
originated from fish species (Berra 22-7).
Yet another scientific discipline,
biogeography (the study of geographic distribution of plants and animals over
time), fits with the evolutionary theory.
On the tiny islands of Hawaii live about one quarter of the world's
2,000 species of flies. Over a thousand
species of snails and certain land mollusks also only live in Hawaii. How can this be? The answer is due to Hawaii's isolation from larger land
masses. Somehow some flies made it to
the island (possibly by a great storm), while their predators didn't. In addition, only one species of bat was
found when the first human settlers arrived in Hawaii, and many plant and
animal species were missing as well (Steering Committee on Science
and Creationism Science and Creationism).
From these scientific disciplines,
evolutionary theory definitely has legitimacy.
But how exactly did evolution
take place, changing one animal with no wings into an animal with wings? Here is where Charles Darwin made the great
leap. He proposed the mechanism of
natural selection, which says, as environmental pressures (the raising and
lowering of food supply, temperature, carbon dioxide/oxygen supply, water
quality) stress a community, organisms that are better fit to the pressures
will live on (while others die off), and will pass on their more resilient
characteristics (genes) on to successive generations. In this manner, populations change in their genetic makeup over
time. Small changes eventually lead to
large changes. Today we see many
examples of in-between species of almost all organs and appendages. For example, let's look at the human eye.
Like a high-dollar camcorder, the human
eye automatically changes the size of the lens to focus on whatever we're
looking at. When we walk into a dark
room, the iris automatically changes its "f-stop" (size of the
opening), to let more light in. Many
animals in nature have eyes at different stages of complexity. The chambered nautilus has relatively simple
eyes, yet they still can focus light.
Many bacteria only have a have a light sensitive end, which responds to
light and directs them towards or away from the light. The advantages of each intermediate stage
are not hard to imagine. One organism
gains advantage over its blind companions by using its one photoreceptor (a
light sensitive cell), while another gains further advantage by mutating its
eye into many photoreceptors. Or the
surface curvature or the transparency of the eye mutates to give a better
picture, giving that organism an advantage (PBS "Evolution").
In addition, many experiments have been
done that show natural selection has taken place. In 1889, a tremendous storm hit a town and many sparrows
died. H.C. Bumpus went out and
collected and measured the wingspans of the birds. Apparently the ones with long and short wings died in the storm,
which lowered the number of mutant sparrows (stabilizing selection). Another example has taken place in the past
50 years. Corn at the University of
Illinois has been pressured to produce more oil and less protein, which was
done by keeping the corn from one generation with the most oil and protein and
using its seed to make the next generation.
Researchers at the University successfully accomplished this, and then
they reversed the process and achieved success again (directional artificial
selection) (Blackmore and Page 96).
One of evolutionary theory's weaker points
is the origin of life. The theory
suggests that life came from no life.
Many opponents argue that DNA is too complex (in even a simple bacteria,
the DNA code is equivalent to all the volumes of the Encyclopedia Brittanica [Taylor]) and intricate of a code to arise
naturally. While evolution of DNA is an
area that is not mentioned by Tim Berra, in his book, Evolution and the Myth of Creationism, he makes a good argument for
how cells without DNA could have arisen from scratch. In 1953, Stanley Miller set up an experiment in which he put a
gaseous mix of methane, ammonia, hydrogen, and water vapor in a flask and
subjected it to a week of electrical discharge. Some brown stuff formed in the flask, which he analyzed to be four
amino acids, urea, and many fatty acids (Miller and Orgel Origins of Life). Many other scientists quickly began
synthesizing other compounds from no life as well, and more complex compounds
from those earlier compounds (Berra 73-4).
However, the origin of DNA from non-living elements remains to be
proven.
Nature points
to a Creator
If evolution took place, is there a god
and what role did he or she play? Many
scientists would argue that God is not provable and that the Genesis account is
just a myth from an early people trying to explain the world around them. However, like evolution, the theory of the
creation story and God's existence can be seen from the evidence in nature.
One argument for existence of a creator is
that things in nature are balanced so precisely for man to be able to live,
that the laws in the universe are geared towards producing man. If man is the goal, someone or something had
to have had the goal of producing man.
This argument is seen in the Anthropic Principle first described by
Brandon Carter, an astrophysicist and cosmologist from Cambridge University, in
a paper he presented at a conference in Poland in 1973 and which was published
in 1974 (Carter Large Number Coincidences). This principle basically says that the fundamental constants of
chemistry and physics in the world are the precise values needed for life to
exist, therefore the constants are life centered, or
"anthropic". For example,
gravity is 10^39 times weaker than electromagnetism. If gravity was just 10^33 times weaker, then the "‘stars
would be a million times less massive and would burn a million times
brighter’" (Taylor). Another
example: the difference between protons
and neutrons is roughly twice the mass of an electron. If this difference is not exactly as it is,
then protons would have become neutrons and vice versa, screwing up chemistry
and life (Taylor). One last
example: the strange properties of
water are exactly what are needed to sustain life. If water doesn’t have the property of its solid form being
lighter than its liquid form (which is unique among all
molecules), than the oceans would freeze from the bottom up and the earth would
be covered with ice (Taylor). One of
the first proponents for evolution, Lamarck, even proposed that life had a
driving force to become more complex, with humans as the most complex organisms
(Blackmore and Page 47-50).
Another argument for God's existence is
that nature is such an elegant design, as seen in the human eye, that there
must be a Designer behind them (PBS "Evolution"). This was Paley's great argument during the
Victorian era, as mentioned earlier.
The problem with this theory is how people interpret it. Many creationists use it to attack
evolution, saying that because things in nature are so elegantly designed, then
there is no way they could be formed by random selection. However, as discussed earlier with the human
eye and animals with less complex eyes, even elegant designs could have arisen
from nothing. Beautiful design does not
prove God, but points to Him.
A plethora of examples of elegant design
can be seen in the complex factory of flesh we all own – the human body. Every
single organ and feature in the body is complex: muscle (a tool that grows by tearing itself and rebuilding), the
eye (a top of the line camera), the lungs and tissues (exchangers of carbon
dioxide produced in the body with oxygen with from the air), the heart (an
involuntary pump that lasts for a lifetime), the kidney (the balancer of
necessary minerals in the body), the lymph nodes (dispatchers of the antibody
defense system), brain (the control tower of all processes in the body), and
DNA (the blueprints for tools [proteins] that then follow the blueprint to
direct growth of all these organs). The
human body is a physical wonder of nature pointing to God.
Some of the similarities we share with
animals also point to God. For example,
all the animals show different traits that we see in humans. For example, dogs are often clumsy, faithful
servants that love to be around people.
Cats, on the other hand, are often well balanced (they always land on
their feet) and antisocial. A skunk
will spray a nasty odor to get out of dangerous looking situation, while an
ostrich will stick its head in the ground.
Ants and bees are very communal creatures, willing to die for the
greater good of the colony. All of
these examples can clearly be seen in humans.
While these similarities between human and animal could be evidence for
evolution, they could point us to a creator with a sense of humor.
Our superiority to all species points to
God. Though animals share many
characteristics with us humans, they lack something great that we possess –
thought. Questions like: "Who am
I? Where am I? What's wrong? What is the remedy?" are common questions to all of mankind,
but not to animals (as far as we know).
Is it built into our brains after millions of years of evolution? Or do these questions point to a Creator who
wants His creation to notice Him and come to Him?
Another suggestion of God’s existence is
how we live in the world and find meaning and beauty in objects. If we are, indeed, solely the products of
nature, and there is no God (the belief of saying only things measurable by
science are truth, thus denying God [the agnostic view put forth by Thomas
Huxley, a strong supporter of evolution during Darwin's time]), then all poets,
artists, philosophers, and theologians are idiots. They all are seeing things that aren't there. Poets see the four seasons as the life of
man – born in spring, matured in the summer, full maturity in autumn, and dead
by winter. They see a flower as a
symbol of hope for new life. Artists
see beauty in the way things are arranged and shaped. With different brushes and paints they try to capture moods of
anger or happiness. Philosophers and
theologians look at life and see different meanings in life and see a God or gods at work. If all of these humanities are solely the result of random laws
working over time, then these endeavors are foolish. Scientists may be erring when they dismiss things not in the
realm of science as untrue.
Another argument for God is the argument
that evolution does not disprove God.
Though all species may have evolved from a common ancestor that evolved
from no life, maybe He set up the laws of physics and chemistry to govern this
process. Indeed, some scientists
believe that there is almost a guiding force behind natural selection. At every point in a group of species, random
events are not random (Blackmore and Page 98).
Darwin himself believed in this possibility. And another way to look at God’s possible action in evolution can
to look at God as an Artist, rather than a Designer. Can a painting be made by itself? Can the pigments get ground up by themselves? Can a paintbrush form itself? Just as a painting needs an artist to form
it, so did evolution need someone or something to guide it along.
The Bible definitely points towards God…if
you believe the Good Book. One reason
to believe the Bible as being factual is that it is an ancient text that
includes much historical data (it tells about kings, lineages, and possibly the
creation). This large book testifies
that God created everything, and consistently repeats this testimony:
"The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the
work of his hands. Day after day they
pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge. There is no speech or language where their
voice is not heard" (Psalm 19:1-3).
"...to the living God, who made heaven and earth and sea and
everything in them. In the past, he let
all nations go their own way. Yet he
has not left himself without testimony: he has shown kindness by giving you
rain from heaven and crops in their seasons; he provides you with plenty of food
and fills your hearts with joy" (Acts 14:15-17).
"For since the creation of the world God's invisible
qualities his eternal power and divine nature have been clearly seen, being
understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse" (Romans
1:20).
These verses alone do not prove God's
existence to a scientist that doesn't believe the Bible. However, these verses indicate that the
Bible is a consistent book, and that by its consistency may be viewed as more than
a mythological story.
Conclusion
Like a historian studying history, the
more sources of data we have, the better.
The common parts of the different accounts cause an outline to come into
view. For example, take a fisherman who
exaggerates the size of a fish he caught.
He may be exaggerating to make the story more exciting. Or he may have forgotten the actual
size. Maybe he mis-measured the fish in
the first place. But if we have
accounts from his wife who cooked it for supper, and his neighbors who ate it,
we can at least know he caught a fish.
Like the fisherman’s fish, the history of the earth and all its living
inhabitants can be seen more clearly with the more sources that are
examined. Though evolution and the
creation story may be appear to be contradictory, they are not actually at odds
with each other. They both have
validity and thus aid us in painting an outline of what really happened.
Appendix
A
1:1In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 1:2And the earth was waste and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep: and the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters 1:3And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. 1:4And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. 1:5And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.
1:6And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. 1:7And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. 1:8And God called the firmament Heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day.
1:9And God said, Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. 1:10And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good. 1:11And God said, Let the earth put forth grass, herbs yielding seed, and fruit-trees bearing fruit after their kind, wherein is the seed thereof, upon the earth: and it was so. 1:12And the earth brought forth grass, herbs yielding seed after their kind, and trees bearing fruit, wherein is the seed thereof, after their kind: and God saw that it was good. 1:13And there was evening and there was morning, a third day.
1:14And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years: 1:15and let them be for lights in the firmament of heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. 1:16And God made the two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. 1:17And God set them in the firmament of heaven to give light upon the earth, 1:18and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good. 1:19And there was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.
1:20And God said, Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. 1:21And God created the great sea-monsters, and every living creature that moveth, wherewith the waters swarmed, after their kind, and every winged bird after its kind: and God saw that it was good. 1:22And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth. 1:23And there was evening and there was morning, a fifth day.
1:24And God said, Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind, cattle, and creeping things, and beasts of the earth after their kind: and it was so. 1:25And God made the beasts of the earth after their kind, and the cattle after their kind, and everything that creepeth upon the ground after its kind: and God saw that it was good. 1:26And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the heavens, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 1:27And God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. 1:28And God blessed them: and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the heavens, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. 1:29And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb yielding seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for food: 1:30and to every beast of the earth, and to every bird of the heavens, and to everything that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for food: and it was so. 1:31And God saw everything that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.
2:1And the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. 2:2And on the seventh day God finished his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. 2:3And God blessed the seventh day, and hallowed it; because that in it he rested from all his work which God had created and made.
2:4These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that Jehovah God made earth and heaven. 2:5And no plant of the field was yet in the earth, and no herb of the field had yet sprung up; for Jehovah God had not caused it to rain upon the earth: and there was not a man to till the ground; 2:6but there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground. 2:7And Jehovah God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. 2:8And Jehovah God planted a garden eastward, in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed. 2:9And out of the ground made Jehovah God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. 2:10And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became four heads. 2:11The name of the first is Pishon: that is it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold; 2:12and the gold of that land is good: there is bdellium and the onyx stone. 2:13And the name of the second river is Gihon: the same is it that compasseth the whole land of Cush. 2:14And the name of the third river is Hiddekel: that is it which goeth in front of Assyria. And the fourth river is the Euphrates. 2:15And Jehovah God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it. 2:16And Jehovah God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: 2:17but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
2:18And Jehovah God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a help meet for him. 2:19And out of the ground Jehovah God formed every beast of the field, and every bird of the heavens; and brought them unto the man to see what he would call them: and whatsoever the man called every living creature, that was the name thereof. 2:20And the man gave names to all cattle, and to the birds of the heavens, and to every beast of the field; but for man there was not found a help meet for him. 2:21And Jehovah God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof: 2:22and the rib, which Jehovah God had taken from the man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. 2:23And the man said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. 2:24Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. 2:25And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.
Bibliography
Berra, Tim. Evolution and the Myth of Creationism.
Stanford: Standford Univ. Press,
1990.
The Bible, Revised Standard Version.
Bierlein, J.F. Parallel Myths. New York:
Ballantine Books, 1994.
Blackmore, Vernon and Page, Andrew. Evolution: The Great Debate. Oxford: Lion
Publishing, 1989.
Carter, Brandon. Large Number Coincidences and the Anthropic Principles in Cosmology,
in Confrontation of Cosmological Theories with Data. Reidel:
Dordrecht, 1974.
"Evolution." Public Broadcasting System. 2001.
Nov. 2001.
<http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/change/grand/index.html>.
Miller, Stanley and
Orgel, Leslie. The Origins of Life
on the Earth. Englewood
Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1974.
Pember, G.H. Earth's Earliest Ages. Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1975.
Steering
Committee on Science and Creationism. Science
and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, Second Edition. 1999.
Nov. 2001. <http://www.nap.edu/html/creationism/evidence.html#>.
Taylor, Ross. "The Creation Evolution Controversy." Nov. 2001.
<http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/rossuk/abiogen.htm>,
<http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/rossuk/c-evol.htm>.
Wright, Richard. Biology Through the Eyes of
Faith. Washington, DC: Christian College Coalition, 1989.