Saturday, November 24, 2007
First of all, there's truth in both science and religion.
I am more inclined to support the religious side, as being a Christian, I do not accept Darwinian evolution. Now, evolution is true to some extent, of that there is no doubt. This explains the different variations of plants and animals. This also explains why bacteria gain immunity to antibiotics. Known as micro-evolution, it is proven true. However, Darwinian evolution presupposes that all life began from simple life forms and evolved into complex life forms over billions of years. Known as macro-evolution, the Darwinian model of evolution is the most strongly supported and documented. However, there are problems with macro-evolution. First of all, the lack of fossil evidence of these transition fossils are a reasonable case against macro-evolution. Hundreds of thousands of fossils have been found, yet none are proven without a doubt to be transition fossils. Occassionally a fossil will appear that is touted as proof of transition fossils, but these fossils are contested by religious groups just as strongly as other evolutionists. If other evolutionists find possible flaws of certain fossils which may disqualify them from being transition fossils, then we cannot accept without assumptions, that they are true transition fossils. That would just be ignorance.
Charles Darwin also mentions in his book "Origin of Species" that if any complex organism could not have been formed by slight, successive modifications, he conceded that his theory would break down. Michael Behe, a biochemist, found that with recent biochemical discoveries, many examples have this "irreducible complexity". It does not disprove evolution outright, but it is definitely a strong case against it.
There is no doubt that chimps have extremely similar DNA to humans. With a recent study confirming a 94% DNA similarity, it is remarkable. Common sense however, would show that 6% of the difference in our DNA is really small to explain the major differences within the species. Just because there is similarity does not prove with outright assurance that one is descendant from the other. Hippos and whales are distantly related, yet I do not know of anyone who has tried to link one as a descendant from another. Perhaps they shared a related ancient ancestor? I won't deny the possibility, but with no proof or evidence, I will not jump to conclusions. Many species are interrelated, and humans are often said to be descendants of an ancient primate, the ancestor of all current primates. However new discoveries are constantly pushing back the timeline of when homo sapiens appeared, causing some once solid timelines to shift their perspectives.
Why do I feel inclined to support religion though? Certainly by Christian beliefs play a part, but there are cases to help show that religion is not at odds with science, and may even complement it in some areas. For example, my beliefs stated that God created humans, as well as every living creature and organism. Birds are a good example of creationism. Though we cannot prove that outright, their flight is a decent case against evolution. Evolution states that if mutations within a certain species prove beneficial, it will pass on to the next generation. But it also states it does so successively, slightly, over a broad period of time. No one has shown how flight developed, and certainly a few feathers protruding from a flightless bird would not prove beneficial in the animal kingdom. Are we to believe that over billions of years these minor mutations which did nothing at first, eventually became wings for flight? It is at odds with Darwinian evolution, on what is considered beneficial.
Also, the event known as the Cambrian explosion is a proven (with science, no doubt) fossil record of nearly all known animal phyla, and they appear fully formed, with no traces whatsoever of evolution. A phenomenon this major would only side the creationism view, as there is documented proof that there is no trace of predecessors that evolutionists require. This is a strong case, as the Bible states that God created the plants as well.
Also, while evolution may theoretically explain, with the Darwinian model, many areas of biology, it cannot explain how life arose from non-living chemicals. While mutations from living beings certainly do occur, there is no such thing in chemicals, where variations are a very different thing from mutation. How then did life arise? Evolutionists say that with billions of years and many chemical reactions, with random chance, life would eventually arise. This has never been proven, and so it is still reasonable not to accept their theory.
And on the topic of biology, DNA has a 4 letter chemical alphabet, where, when used in various sequences, they make up the information needed for a cell to function. Now when we see writing, it is reasonable to assume that someone wrote it. By analogy, the same could be said for the chemical alphabet in our DNA. Reasoning by analogy, would this not be reasonable to say that someone wrote this chemical alphabet (through which all life functions)? If evolution says that random mutations which are benificial are passed to the next generation, I thnk it'd be likely to see benefits of mutated DNA, yet there isn't. All life uses this chemical alphabet, which is a strong case of backing up the Genesis account, where it states that God created every creature. With His signature, so to speak.
Evolution is proven true, to a certain extent, with micro-evolution. However, macro-evolution, and especially the Darwinian model, are far more controversial, with objections not only from religious groups, but from other scientists as well. They are not outright proven. There are cases which support Darwinian evolution, but there are cases which support religious views as well. Therefore, while software and biology may support the fact that humans descended from chimps, it is still not proven and uncontested. The fact that other biologists object to the current model of evolution shows that reasonable flaws are shown, which cannot therefore, be certain and true. With some cases in nature to back up religious views, and my own Christian beliefs, it is therefore reasonable to be inclined towards the religious view.
