Debating the starting point for human life has been a feature of humanity since that very start point. Currently two main schools of thought dominate the floor -creationism and evolution. These themselves are divided into their own numerous sub sections of belief which perhaps makes it unlikely that there will ever be a point where creationism and evolution coexist.
The simple reason is that the two belief systems stand necessarily at odds. Creationism asserts that the the universe is the creation of a supernatural being. In most cases this includes the claim that humans were created whole in the image of this being. Generally speaking the being in question is the God of Abrahamic religions and the date of creation is set at 6000 years ago.
Those who follow evolution believe life has developed over the course of billions of years through the process of natural selection. This idea, usually credited to Charles Darwin, is based it upon the perception of all life as producing more offspring then can survive and the offspring with certain character traits surviving ahead of others. There is much scientific evidence to suggest that this is, at least partially, accurate.
As this means all life adapts to its surroundings, thus making survival more likely, it negates the idea of a first human being created in another beings image and then remaining that way for centuries hence. Also evolution puts the earth's age at over 30 billion years. Here we see that the findings of one philosophy simply do not fit with the other.
There have been moves in recent years, however, towards a compromised stance. Sometimes this comes from scientists, sometimes it comes from priests and sometimes it comes simply from people who can't be totally sure of one idea or the other. Yet it is an increasingly popular perspective.
For this idea to work, it would rely upon a supernatural being creating the universe and then allowing evolution to occur on its own. While such a viewpoint is feasible, indeed quite appealing, it opens up wider issues of morality, religion and God. For example, if a religious groups was to concede this ground, it would essentially contradict beliefs they once held to be unswayable.
It is little wonder then that when creationists take a step towards Darwin or evolutionary theorists take a step towards God, there are howls of derision, both from their traditional opponents and those on their own side. One popular creationist theory that all changes to life forms are not an urge for survival but an act of God's intervention is seen as absurd by Darwinians. Similarly the steady nerved belief in Darwin's theories is dismissed as a large a leap of faith by those pumping intelligent design.
Considering the number of arguments and counter arguments at work here, the idea of a world where creationism and evolution coexist seems a strange one. Yet there may be some veracity in the compromise. What is certainly true is that a real truth will only be made by those who still welcome the debate.
The simple reason is that the two belief systems stand necessarily at odds. Creationism asserts that the the universe is the creation of a supernatural being. In most cases this includes the claim that humans were created whole in the image of this being. Generally speaking the being in question is the God of Abrahamic religions and the date of creation is set at 6000 years ago.
Those who follow evolution believe life has developed over the course of billions of years through the process of natural selection. This idea, usually credited to Charles Darwin, is based it upon the perception of all life as producing more offspring then can survive and the offspring with certain character traits surviving ahead of others. There is much scientific evidence to suggest that this is, at least partially, accurate.
As this means all life adapts to its surroundings, thus making survival more likely, it negates the idea of a first human being created in another beings image and then remaining that way for centuries hence. Also evolution puts the earth's age at over 30 billion years. Here we see that the findings of one philosophy simply do not fit with the other.
There have been moves in recent years, however, towards a compromised stance. Sometimes this comes from scientists, sometimes it comes from priests and sometimes it comes simply from people who can't be totally sure of one idea or the other. Yet it is an increasingly popular perspective.
For this idea to work, it would rely upon a supernatural being creating the universe and then allowing evolution to occur on its own. While such a viewpoint is feasible, indeed quite appealing, it opens up wider issues of morality, religion and God. For example, if a religious groups was to concede this ground, it would essentially contradict beliefs they once held to be unswayable.
It is little wonder then that when creationists take a step towards Darwin or evolutionary theorists take a step towards God, there are howls of derision, both from their traditional opponents and those on their own side. One popular creationist theory that all changes to life forms are not an urge for survival but an act of God's intervention is seen as absurd by Darwinians. Similarly the steady nerved belief in Darwin's theories is dismissed as a large a leap of faith by those pumping intelligent design.
Considering the number of arguments and counter arguments at work here, the idea of a world where creationism and evolution coexist seems a strange one. Yet there may be some veracity in the compromise. What is certainly true is that a real truth will only be made by those who still welcome the debate.
No comments:
Post a Comment