Transcript Revision: Science, religion and the origins of life

Science, religion and
the origins of life
Philip Allan Publishers © 2016
How old is the Earth? (1)
Most of us assume the answer is millions of years — in part we have
come to know that through documentaries on dinosaurs and seeing
their skeletons and fossils in museums. Common scientific
estimates using radioactive dating techniques put the answer at
about
4.5 billion years.
In contrast to this modern belief are claims made by James Ussher,
Bishop of Armagh (in Ireland) in 1650. Ussher looked to use the
Bible to determine the age of creation. By counting the genealogies
in the Bible along with the ages of the various prophets in the Old
Testament, he arrived at the date of 23 October 4004 BCE. That
such a precise date is given says something about the way
knowledge was viewed. It has to be precise and certain for it is
these qualities that allow us to know we are dealing with a fact. Such
a view of the Bible is often described as biblical literalism.
Philip Allan Publishers © 2016
How old is the Earth? (2)
Natural history
The biblical fact of a young Earth stood in stark contrast to the
discoveries of Charles Lyell, described in his book Principles of
Geology (1830). Lyell argued that the forces of nature created
the wonders of rock formations over millions of years. The
typography of the Earth with its hills and valleys was formed
over eons by processes in the natural world. Alongside such
developments in geology Robert Chambers argued in Vestiges
of the Natural History of Creation (1843) that the fossil record
could only make sense if animal life had developed and
changed over an immense period of time.
Philip Allan Publishers © 2016
Natural selection
In 1838 Charles Darwin read a book by Thomas Malthus
called An Essay on the Principles of Population which
allowed his mind to settle on the idea of natural selection as
an explanation for the development of life on Earth. This
was finally published in 1859 in his book On the Origin of
Species by Means of Natural Selection. Once he had
published the book he discovered 34 other people who had
been thinking along similar lines, as he acknowledges in the
third edition of the book. Patrick Matthew had even used
the term ‘the natural law of selection’ in 1831 in published
but not well-known writings, and William Wells had been
reflecting on comparable thoughts as early as 1818. In
short, natural selection was an idea that had come of age.
Darwin’s book gave detailed systematic and academic
expression to the idea.
Philip Allan Publishers © 2016
The best fit
Darwin summed up his theory in On the Origin of Species with
the words ‘Multiply, vary, let the strongest live and the weakest
die.’ While we may substitute the word ‘fit’ for ‘strongest’, as
the English philosopher Herbert Spencer did in 1864, the
intended meaning is the same. Animals struggle for survival in
their environment and those less suited to it die earlier and
have fewer offspring than those who live longer. The hereditary
traits of the survivors are passed on to following generations at
a higher frequency and thus become widespread within the
population. Species therefore change gradually over time to
make a better ‘fit’ with the environment they exist within. This is
their environmental niche.
Philip Allan Publishers © 2016
Religious response to evolution
T. H. Huxley, who doubted the existence of God, engaged in a
famous public discussion with the bishop of Oxford, Samuel
Wilberforce, in 1860. In evolution Wilberforce saw a threat to the
dignity of man, the authority of the Bible and the credibility of the
Church. That evolution struggles to explain human free will and
therefore cannot be correct was, in part, the line of response
Wilberforce took. Huxley, by all accounts, focused on the evidence
of evolution and that if this meant humanity descended from an ape
then this should be accepted against religious sophistry. If that was
bad news for the Bible then so be it. Evolution challenged the claim
in Genesis 1 that creation ‘was good’. Life as ‘red in tooth and claw’
seems more the order of the day in a natural evolutionary process
that is a constant struggle for survival.
Philip Allan Publishers © 2016
The fundamentalists
While debates about evolution and how the Church might respond to
it rumbled on, a group of American scholars connected with the
Protestant Presbyterian Church developed a new approach to cope
with its challenges.
This was published in 1910 through a series of essays, each
supporting the importance and basis of what was seen as an
essential Christian belief. This collection of essays were called The
Doctrinal Deliverance of 1910 (a.k.a. ‘The Five Fundamentals’) and
proponents became known as fundamentalists. The term
‘fundamentalist’ today has a connected but wider meaning. The
major focus of debate was, however, the Bible and its truthfulness,
as without that as a trustworthy source of revelation of God the basis
upon which to believe in Jesus as God, life after death, and the day
of judgement becomes questionable.
Philip Allan Publishers © 2016
Creationism and intelligent
design (1)
Philip E. Johnson, a law professor from Berkeley University in the
USA, has been an influential thinker in the development of creation
science and its intelligent design arguments. Rather than focusing
on the issue of the age of the Earth, in his book Darwin on Trial
(1991) he attacks the whole idea of natural selection. He accepts
microevolution (development within species). Indeed, it is impossible
to deny this as the so-called ‘Darwin’s finches’ example portrayed in
David Lack’s 1947 book makes clear. The finches on the Galapagos
Islands have developed different beaks depending on the
environmental challenges of each island and the food sources
available. Microevolution can also be produced under experimental
conditions.
Philip Allan Publishers © 2016
Creationism and intelligent
design (2)
However, Johnson argues that evolution’s reliance on natural
selection and adaptation as providing the means for
development between species of animal (macroevolution) is
not proved beyond doubt. As a lawyer Johnson applies a
criminal justice level of judgement, beyond reasonable doubt.
He argues that atheists assume a materialistic worldview in
which evolution must provide the answer to the diversity of life
on Earth as there is no God to do it. But the truth of atheism is
itself not beyond reasonable doubt. Within this context the
creation of animals in their species by God is argued for by
Johnson. It is upon this foundation that limited microevolution
takes place.
Philip Allan Publishers © 2016
Common ancestry
The anatomical similarity between the arm and hand structure
in humans and that in a wide range of species including frogs,
lizards, birds, cats, bats and even whales speaks of a common
ancestry. Left to a designer creating each species from
scratch a bird wing could be better engineered. However, birds
evolved from the forms their evolutionary ancestors already
had. The larvae of grasshoppers, spiders and centipedes are
also anatomically similar despite the obvious differences these
species have as adults. Evolution is not a biological adaptive
free for all. It has its limitations and the similarity in the form of
those limitations between species gives witness to a natural
process rather than acts of specially designed creation.
Philip Allan Publishers © 2016
God’s failings
Apart from arguments over the science of evolution and the validity of how
transitional fossils are interpreted and dated, the intelligent design
approach fails to do justice to belief in God as creator. The human eye is
not perfect, as we have a blind spot caused by the optic nerve crossing the
retina. This is an imperfection in design not present in the eyes of squids
and octopuses.
Either God directly created this imperfection or you have to argue the fall in
some way corrupted the natural world and our very natures. To believe this
about the fall brings us to a literal belief in the existence of Adam and Eve
and the moral corruption and physical degradation of humanity caused by
that fall.
This is not just about the pain of childbirth mentioned in Genesis 3:16 —
miscarriages go beyond that. The eye remains imperfect and it is not the
only imperfection in human design. In short, the human body looks like the
product of an evolving process rather than a manufactured ideal.
Philip Allan Publishers © 2016
Creationism in science
education (1)
Should schools teach religious views of creation? In the USA there
is a split between the private world of beliefs and the public world of
education. Religion is seen as a private belief and the state
education system excludes religion as a subject from its curriculum
content. This has not always been the case. In the state of
Tennessee in 1925 there was a famous trial, known today as the
‘Scopes Monkey Trial’. John Scopes was a teacher accused of
teaching evolution when a law called the Butler Act forbid its
teaching in state schools. While the immediate aftermath of the trial
meant that evolution was passed over in many school textbooks in
the 1920s and 1930s, this changed with the 1958 National Defense
Education Act. The act secured the place of evolution within the US
school science curriculum.
Philip Allan Publishers © 2016
Creationism in science
education (2)
In 1968 creationism and references to Genesis were excluded from
the school curriculum by a US Supreme Court decision. Since the
1970s there have been repeated attempts by fundamentalist
Christians to portray creationism as an alternative science and get
religion back into public education. In 2005 a federal court in
Pennsylvania ruled against the inclusion of intelligent design
alongside the teaching of evolution by the Dover Area School Board
of Directors. Education continues to be a battleground between
religion and science in the USA. This is despite the overwhelming
majority of scientists, whether they be atheist, agnostic or theistic,
seeing creationist and intelligent design arguments as
pseudoscience.
Philip Allan Publishers © 2016