Creationism and Darwinism
I respect Charles Darwin as a great observer of nature and his contribution to biological concepts but he is being misused and misquoted to prove that God does not exist.
Darwins book ‘On the Origin of Species’ is celebrating its 150th anniversary which proves that his theory of evolution has earned great respect and is a subject of intense interest for the scientists. But it has also given a basis of argument to the atheist who quote and misquote Darwin highly controversing and conflicting with the entire monotheist and other religious community.
Darwins theory still seems current even after so many years of it being proposed, explaining the phenomenon and the rules that base the diversity of life on this earth. Darwin not only adduced the fact of evolution but also discovered its main mechanism i.e. the process of natural selection to produce better adaptable varieties of species. There is no second opinion that Darwin laid the foundations for the comprehendible modern biological science in the light of which a lot has been proposed and explained.
But there are unsettling aspects of Darwin’s educational ventures which are especially worth noting. Biblical and Quranic Creationism has a strong case of its own which answers aspects which biology fails to comprehend, hence cannot be rebuffed.
Scientific advances have enabled us to unravel the DNA structure and has we have discovered the mysteries that hid deep inside their detailed and minute structure. It is now established that DNA is the unit of inheritance that tends to provide scientific link between living organisms and hold the key for every facet of the configuration of each and every scientifically known living species.
Let’s go back to the time when the first living molecule was born. it seems strange that how could it carry on living in that harsh environment and without being its basic needs met, the most essential of all, bio useable energy? How the first living molecule could have inherited the desired intelligence to steer itself to what we are today?
The first molecule had to survive until it became capable of acquiring and synthesizing energy, excrete the unwanted, circulate the energy to desired locations, understand what challenges it faces from the environment and how to maneuver and wrestle it self to being a sustainable living creature. Diffusion and osmosis are a greater challenge as first life is predicted to have sprung in the waters.
Simultaneously, it also had to figure out how to reproduce and how to store all what it had gained from its own experiences and how to transmit it to the offspring. It also had to develop the genetic code, all by it, a code the mysteries of which the most developed ones (humans) are just now begin to understand and unravel, of course with all the scientific assistance at its disposal.
Had it been a step by step process, then all these developments would never have had been possible. Does it not seem obvious that the first living creature was a one off, fully developed and capable being who had all the necessary backup to sustain itself? And further more, to ‘evolve’ into a multicellular, multifunctional, multidimensional human being?
What were that force and the source of that force which manifested so much into that ‘first living molecule’ that it became so intelligent to develop on its own? It did not have the aid or support of knowledge or technology neither did it had any chances for an error. All our modern day developments and years of sustained refinement of that intelligence in the shape of humans are hapless in front of that molecule. Science terms this force as the nature but the question still remains that what empowered this intelligence onto the nature?
My common sense and logical reasoning fails to comprehend the creation without a creator. The fact that the first living organism had to be a complete performing individual seems inevitable the more I ponder into it. Why did the nature not evolve computers, cars and aero planes to be subservient to mankind but it managed to do the same in shape of horses, cattle and plants. The basic ingredients for both were available abundantly to the nature. How, only the humans managed to be the masters of the universe (on the planet earth) and none other species can even think of following the footsteps?
I agree with Darwin’s ideas very much, but to the extent that they are responsible for inter-species adaptation enabling them to survive in the ever changing natural and environmental circumstances. His theories might explain the biological advances amongst the species but fall short of explaining the non-biological proceeds such as development of intelligence, establishment of rules for the genetic makeup, feelings and sympathy and much more. Many a features of the emotional aspect of humans can be termed as a weakness, but still genetic development could not exclude them through out their developmental history.
Any mutation that clicks the right buttons on the DNA structure to fully develop into a perfect new species in one go with the capability to reproduce is not only remote but seems to be non-existent until there is a master configurer behind the scenes.
The evolution concepts somehow also seem not in context as to how evolution of the male and female sexes of the same species develops in equal harmony encompassing perfection within and for each other without conflicting interests, and this stands true through out the living kingdom.
Evolution seems to influence the gender development of the opposite sex as well which feel bizarre. The role of a creator who set everything operative based on rules, which we now know as scientific and mathematical principles, cannot be ruled out in any instance. What we term as scientific development, all of it, is nothing more than discovering these formulae and how they work.
Yes, there are definite scientific rules that encompass all this living and non living worlds and even beyond. If sun and the solar systems observe scientific rules, then why not DNA? So agreeing with Darwin on the discovery of the principles of evolution is not an understandable thing. But to consider that all this was unplanned and unaccompanied, like the atheist say, is beyond intelligent compherension.
Einstein once said that he felt the truths of the universe were like a series of thick closed volumes waiting in a dimly lit library. Very occassionally one of us is allowed to step forward, lift one of the age-old books and get a glimpse of what was written on just one single page. It seems that Darwin took this step, had a good glimpse on what was written on the page he saw, but reckoned it as the full volume.
Or it might also be that Darwin never meant his theory to be used to prove that God doesn’t exist and it is a mere adaptation by the atheist, perhaps a mutation gone teribally wrong. Scientifically speaking the force that establish natural and scientific laws may be termed as GOD because nothingness can create everything only if it is systematic and nonconflicting. The mere fact that all this is living in harmony supports the monotheist theory.
To fully understand life and its evolution, we need to step out of the scientific framework and accommodate the monotheist view of Creationism which fits in perfectly well like the missing pieces of the grand puzzle. There, definitely, is a need to identify a supreme force whose established principles of the self-evolving powers of nature that govern all aspect of the living and non living kingdoms, and their coexistence in complete supportive harmony with each other.
Liked it
4 Responses to “Creationism and Darwinism”
On May 9, 2009 at 4:12 pm
the theory of Evolution has little to say whether there is or isn’t a God. It has a lot to say about whether organisms were created as immutable entities designed for their particular niches, or they’re the product of change and adaptation. The evidence is overwhelmingly for the latter.
I’d like to ask why people insist the creationism of their own religion is valid, when it’s often very different from from the creation myth of a different religion. You cite the creation myth of the bible but there are others and members of those other religions would argue just a vehemently as you that their own creation myth was the true one,
Science usually has little to say about religion because it deals with gathering information to prove or disprove hypothetical ideas and eventually bring them together into useful coherent theories. It cannot do this with religion because the only data they can offer is manuscripts and historical records (and the historical records are often in short supply and sometimes contrary to the manuscripts).
Most of the time science and religion can get along side by side by being different subjects that don’t step on each others toes. Science dealing with facts figures and data about the natural world, and religion dealing with human social ritual, stories and metaphors that equip most people psychologically to deal with certain traumatic aspects of life and survival (and, unfortunately, a certain amount of control in the case of state religions).
Where science and religion really do clash is when it comes to Fundamentalism. In this situation the religious manuscript must be treated as the literal truth. Any contradiction must be treated as herasy. It cannot move from its position so the only course of action is to try to destroy any evidence that contradicts their scriptures – often with the overiding explanation that; if proof anainst their scriptures is found, it’s been put there in order to test faith, or by an evil being to fool mankind.
This is a dangerous kind of attitude no matter what the religion. It can suddenly become ‘right’ to kill people. The word of god must be protected. The false people who are full of sin are making the word of God look like lies and, worse still, God seems to be doing nothing about it. They’re living happy lives while God’s people are living by the constraints of Gods holy law. It’s outragious, and if Gods hand is slow to act maybe the people should act for him – and then follows the thoughtless stupid deaths for no real reason at all.
On May 10, 2009 at 5:30 am
I agree with you Ian in that religion is abstract and that science is material. And also that the theory of Evolution has little to say whether there is or isn’t a God.
True it is that God(s)will keep on existing whether Darwin is right or wrong or whether atheism or monotheism is the right virtue.
Regarding the people of sin, it is not God who is doing nothing, but it is the humans. Humans are protecting and overprotecting the so called HUMAN RIGHTS of the people who keep on depriving other humans of their rights. So you and me need to raise a voice against the people who kill. Good were those days when there was life sentence for taking anyones life because that is the right thing to do.
God has made all this and that and has set it in motion basing everything on pure scientific phenomenon, the ones we understand and the ones that we dont. Paranormal was once totally rejected by science but now science accepts and does intensive research on all this to understand the phenomenon.
Time travel, reaching the ends of the universe, exploring the depths of the sea and the land, breaking the molecular and submolecular structures are all things that science didnot believe in, but now the case is opposite.
Theoritically lot has been proven possible and it is only the practical aspects that are being considered. Science has done good in removing the myths and then we should understand that majority of the myths are not related to religion or religious scriptures. It is the false understanding of the humans of those times who could not understand a phenomenon and then attribted it to something that we has been proven a myth today. Myths got attrbuted to religion because at those times religious scholars were thought to be the best lot.
So what ever they said, be it religious or nonreligious, it got the approval and the following to the letter. God didnt say that the earth is flat or that it is stationary, but it was the human that sat down to think and then jotted it as flat and stationary because that was the farthest length he could think.
Regarding the killings, God did not tell to kill those who go against the word of God, but He asks us to make them understand and realize. Self defence is a right of every individual and so do some doctorines say that defend(kill) if you are attacked.
Darwin is a great scholar who ought to be respected because he proposed aomething 150 years ago that is being proved right by all the biological evidence today in light of the latest research and aids. It took one Darwin to concieve and now millions are there to work on his theory.
That what cannot be proven scientifically necessarily does not mean that it is non existant. Perhaps science is still in its infancy with relation to nature. All our understanding cannot make a single organ that can compare to what nature has created. This means that NATURE has a mind of its own and the driving force behind it which makes things work in favour of the nature.
It is that force that we need to recognize and to which most of the non man made religions term as GOD. And because every human is born on the right virtue, so there is this natural thirst inside that propels him to find the truth. But alas the ones not properly guided are misguided.
Lets us all understand the scientific and try to understand the nonscientific, because feelings are non scientific. They come from the heart, or probably somewhere else. Why care for the young ones and feel good when one does something good. This has no relation with science but still we believe and practice. Blame our selves first for what is happening today and then turn the finger towards others, GOD.
On May 10, 2009 at 7:20 am
Tahir,
I would like to make it clear, first of all, that I’m Agnostic possibly bordering on Atheism. I don’t know whether God is some real fundamental part of the Universe or something dreamed up by men. If there is a real God, I feel that he (or she or it) may be something that could have spurred us to create religions in ancient times, but may be something very different from what those religions describe. as far as the paranormal is concerned, I accept that some strange occurrences may be down to phenomena that have yet to be described by science; after all, it seems that breakthroughs in modern physics point to the fact that there is far more to the Universe than the four dimensions we see.
However; on close scrutiny of most paranormal events, the only evidence available is hearsay and scraps of photo and other media that can easily be faked (and some of it is very obviously faked). Non of the research has ever turned up anything concrete unless there has been some failure in the controls surrounding the experiment.
Another thing I’d like to clear up is, I wasn’t blaming God for not reacting to the sinful; I don’t even know if there is a God, after all. I was merely putting myself into the mindset of the dangerous fundamentalist to show how he might be driven to commit terrible acts.
I totally agree with your statement: Let us all understand the scientific and try to understand the nonscientific. But there are religious leaders in the world who are trying to prevent their followers from hearing the scientific, for fear that they will lose power – not just in the middle east either. There dangerous Christian fundamentalists in the Bible belt of America too.
I hope I’ve made my position clear, Tahir. I’m not here to try to turn anyone away from their religion, but some problems connected with it must be recognised before we can make the world a safer place.
On May 25, 2009 at 4:41 pm
Dear Ian,
Your message is loud and clear in its context and your concerns are genuine in the current scenario and you also are right to state that extemeism in fundalism is the damaging factor specially when people are not ready to accept the obvious point of view. This approach of our leaders has turned generations and generations of humans stop believeing.
When ever speaking of GOD, I return to the basic unit of today’s multicellular human. It comes that ameoba is the simplest of the living organisms. But again it is also gives us a sense of completion in itself and can perform all the bodily functions our complex bodies are designed to do.
I was just looking at my finger today and saw the cut on it which is now nearly repaired. In an instance, I reverted back to my ameobic origin and then the first ammino acids that were probably created by some natural process.
I just keep on wondering and wondering how it survived and kept on surviving under the harsh climate, and how different molecules managed to assemble to form the simplest of the DNA molecule and how that DNA molecules survived and then further, how did it have an understanding how to shape up its future!!!
My human intelligence fails to compherend! We pass knowledge and info and experiences to our future generations but how did one amino acid manage to all this? After all, evolution theory supports the hit and trial method, but there ought to be a managing force behind all this hit and trial process, some planogram, some sequence, some thing XYZ whatso ever.
The most bizzare of the things is the development of emotions and feelings, love, hate, jealousy and stuff. It is such an abstract thing that evolution might not be able to suggest a compherendable theory in this regard, mechanically it might be justified and a lot of it might be true. After all human is still learning, and shall keep on learning. Probably humanity is destined on the path to discover itself, or may be rediscover!!!
Post Comment