Evolutionism of Science or Faith in Creationism

Reads: 335  | Likes: 0  | Shelves: 0  | Comments: 1

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Reddit
  • Pinterest
  • Invite

More Details
Status: Finished  |  Genre: Religion and Spirituality  |  House: Booksie Classic
This article compares the Evolution and Creationism theory and belief. It is in defense of the faith from the works of Richard Dawkins.

Submitted: October 07, 2011

A A A | A A A

Submitted: October 07, 2011

A A A

A A A


The Dispute of the Selfish Gene and Selfless Gene

Evolutionism of Science or Faith in Creationism

 

 

 

 

 

Richard Dawkins, leading atheist in his stance of the non- existence of God and Darwinist in his viewpoint on evolution quickly and purposefully offends the religious audiences of his book The Selfish Gene. In fact, to offend religious audiences, seems to be at least one of the primary motivations of quite a few of the books Dawkins has authored. He very boldly and condescendingly proclaims in his book The God Delusion, “If this book works as I intend, religious readers who open it will be atheist before they put it down”. (Dawkins, The God Delusion, 2005, p. 5).

Religious parents are alarmed about Dawkins’ theories, writings and selective attacks against the Christian faith and those who believe in God. Sigmund Brouwer writes to warn Christian parents of the potential harm caused by Dawkins’ controversial books, which are widely spread throughout the world. A child’s simple question of, “Who made the moon?” (Brouwer, 2008), expresses the need for mankind to find answers to one life’s most controversial questions, ‘Is there a God’?  To answer questions of how the cosmos came to be carries great weight. Credit must accurately be ascribed to the carpenter of the universe whether it be God or for argument’s sake some other form of matter. Is life responsible for itself? Is there a great architect blueprinting the existence of the galactic splendors and genetic masterpieces? Brouwer warns that “Dawkins does not have intellectual honesty to fairly and squarely face the twenty-first century’s most compelling argument for the existence of God.” (Brouwer, 2008, p. 4).

It was appalling to read such scientific yet entertaining junk. This book is comparable with that of ‘scientific-pornography’ it looks arousing, and may be an interesting form of entertainment for the idle-minded, but in the end it is only a cheap thrill and one is yet lonely, empty and looking for true meaning. He states in the opening pages of his work “This book is mainly to be interesting” (Dawkins, The Selfish Gene, 2006, p. 3) and should be read with the likeminded caution. It is to be duly noted that Dawkins is neither indolent in his efforts of study nor apathetic in his words of persuasion. Due to the abundance of intellectual dishonesty and zealous discourse the concepts presented in Dawkins’ book are disqualified as neither fact nor provable theory.

Richard Dawkins seemingly attempts to mobilize strong efforts to indoctrinate members of secular and religious communities with the shallow waters of the evolution theory. His theory is nonsensical in its foundation. There has been a rise of Christian scientists and thinkers who are daring to scientifically, academically and theoretically challenge these illogical hypotheses. One such thinker, Charles Foster, contends in his book The Selfless Gene that the genetics of humankind is as selfless and altruistic, as is its creator. Whereas Dawkins, in The Selfish Gene, believes that “We and all other animals are machines created by our genes. This entitles us to expect certain quality in our genes… a predominant quality to be expected in a successful gene is ruthless selfishness.” (Dawkins, The Selfish Gene, 2006, p. 2).

Dawkins

Dawkins believes mankind to be ruthless and selfish in all of its endeavors. That selflessness or altruistic behavior is impossible because humanity’s genes are not wired that way. His proof is in the human efforts to “Teach generosity and altruism because we are born selfish” (Dawkins, The Selfish Gene, 2006, p. 3), he believes it to be in our nature to not care about anyone other than our selves. The genes of man/woman and all other species is formed from star-dust which has selfishly evolved from one gene into many. The self-made and self-evolving gene of all life is not from a Spiritual God as many believe but rather from a self-created machine or ‘gene’ that was created to reproduce itself.

We find that Dawkins ideas are rationally void and his opinions on the mere making and the fully evolving of the gene are conflicting. He avoids the self-made gene’s responsibility of creating and forming the mind of mankind which produces the motive behind the actions of altruism. Altruism is defined as; “[1] unselfish regard for or devotion to the welfare of other [2] behavior by animals that is not beneficial to or may be harmful to itself but that benefits other of its species”. (Pickett, Nunberg, & Watkins, 2004). An altruistic act for humankind is not the same as for animals and other species.  For mankind altruism is not a meager act of selflessness but it rivets the reasoning and motives which support human behavior.

Dawkins cannot advocate for evolution through genes on the foundation of morality or motive, only on the actions of animals doing without thinking. Yet if his claim is that mankind are descendants from such animals through genes he must account for the evolved gene that develops the moral mind as it finds it necessary to distinguish the acts of humanity from the motives behind the actions of mankind.

One must contend with the species which engulf the planet. The mere existence of all that subsists causes one to question ‘how exactly did I it get here’? Is man the result of a loving God who created me in a perfect atmosphere within the chaotic perfections of the earth that somehow allows life to continue? Am I a ‘monkey’s uncle’, or is mankind the nephew of the baboon? Dawkins clearly states that, “Humans and baboons have evolved by natural selection.” (Dawkins, The Selfish Gene, 2006, p. 4). Though this writer is quick to criticize religious believers for their unproven belief in a God created man, he brings no testable or proven data of evolution possessing the ability to transform genes of apes into rational and highly-intelligent ‘souls’. Therefore his arguments become one of intellectual dishonesty. A theory that is unable to produce data that stands on its findings alone, is not honest. It must be noted that Dawkins and the force behind the evolution theory is fueled by its attempt to disarm, dismantle and discredit the creation theory.

Current day supporters of Darwinism admit that there are previous errors in theories that were prematurely developed and published. In a 2011 article entitled, “Darwin, What he Got Wrong”, Darwin tells of impulsively jumping the gun on the concept of the “crustal up-lift” in order to make a name for himself and advance his career. He would later write, “A nice mess I made, my paper was one long gigantic blunder from beginning to end.” (Maddox, 2011). Perhaps Dawkins shares this approach to study, only endeavoring to advance his career at the expense of integrity.

Darwin’s ‘survival of the fittest’ has further evolved into Dawkins ‘survival of the freakiest’. In promoting Dawkins’ examples of evolution, and the ‘replicators’ which carry the building blocks of the genetic structure, genetic change and genetic evolution, one must account for the variations of species in order to support such a monumental claim. (Dawkins, The Selfish Gene, 2006). Five or ten, overly exaggerated examples are not sufficient in efforts to provide evidence of evolution among thousands of species. His over generalized analysis of change is also not sufficient. He uses examples of genes that were transformed however he cannot trace when or how the gene was replaced. Nor can Dawkins establish whether the gene was transformed at all due to evolution or copulation. For example, when breeding dogs, the offspring of two full breed German-shepherds would not be the same as the genetic offspring of a Pit-bull and German-shepherd. The dog would look different and have altered gene from that of its original design. However, such phenomena would not be the natural selection of evolution; it would be the result of mixed genes during conception. One must make certain assumptions when examining evolution and genes being ‘ruthlessly selfish’. The first assumption must be that genes do not welcome change. There are various species of animals where either the male and/or the female has the ability to reproduce without the aid of a partner. That’s selfish! However the human reproduction system requires a selflessness of time and energy. Next there isn’t a male and female, who would reproduce, who also have the exact same genes yet they share compatible genes. This supports the idea that genes look for companionship to reproduce a mystical miracle time and time again. Parents do not know what their children will look like upon conception, not the color of eyes nor the spacing of teeth, they mix the genes and wait for the same designer of their productions to form what will come.

Dawkins is hypocritical in his claim to be a man of science because a true scientist will investigate all possible hypotheses for truth. Instead, he refuses, rejects and rebuffs the challenge to approach the science and study of life on earth from creationism or a ‘spiritual-scientific’ viewpoint. Dawkins would assert that he does not believe in mystical, supernatural or the extraterrestrial (meaning not of this earth) (Dawkins, The Selfish Gene, 2006). However, he would then contradict his own beliefs when he states that all life was created of ‘stardust’. Stardust creating all life is equally as mystical as the convictions of various religious faiths in a God of all creation. Potentially, his fear is following the same path of Antony Flew who is perhaps known as the world’s most famous atheistic philosopher. Flew became most popular when at the age of eighty-one, he publicly renounced atheism. Having concluded that despite what he publicly had taught, and published for all of his adult life, God does exist. (Brouwer, 2008).

Charles Foster wrote on ‘Intelligent Design’ and how it does not eliminate Darwinism;

“Most Intelligent Design adherents accepts that Darwinian natural selection is an adequate (or at least not a demonstrably inadequate) explanation for most of the biological world. But they draw the line on some structures and processes. These they say are so complex that natural selection could not possibly have designed them. They necessarily require the hand of an “Intelligent Designer”. Almost all identify the designer with God- although they often do not say so expressively”.  (Foster, 2009, p. 43).

Foster disputed Darwinian philosophies through fervent study of Darwin’s Theory and research. This qualifies him to at least make a cogent determination for his stance, whether in support of Darwinism, in rejection of it or both. His writings suggest that some things can be explained though Darwin’s theory. They also propose that not all things can be explained, ‘now or in the future’ as far science can see. Such as, where the ‘X’ came from, how it’s structured or how it has evolved. (Foster, 2009). Intelligent Design does not seek to dismiss the strong evidence that supports the view that some evolution may in fact develop through natural selection. Foster believes there is no point in contesting the fruition and change of some things.

Foster

The notion of Intelligent Design is highlighted in at least two points, first the mysterious nature of God in science and the thought of the Creator ‘filling in the gaps’ of his creation and secondly the mystery of God in the history of science. He states “the history of science is the history of inexplicable things becoming staid, school-textbook orthodoxy.” (Foster, 2009, p. 87).

Foster believes that the union of anthropology and science cannot bring forth the answers of the existence and creation of man. Moreover “anthropologist must get theological” (Foster, 2009, p. 212) if we are going to understand this unique being.

Creationism vs. Evolution

The theory of evolution does not meet the bar of the law of logic which demands that every known effect must have a previous cause. “Ex hihilo nihil fit: that is to say, “nothing comes from nothing”. Therefore one must conclude that the universe must have been created by God, who proves himself to be an external supernatural being existing outside of both time and space. Everything that exists must be the result of a previous cause” (Jeffrey, 2003, p. 85). Science is limited to the physical that has been trapped by time and space, therefore how can it measure or understand things beyond its scope. Yet one thing one can be sure, evolution does not meet its own standard of logical existence.

In the biblical accounts of creation in Genesis chapter 1 and 2, one will find both creationism and God working through a swift-evolution in solidarity and an autonomous method. First, let us look at the possibility of evolution in Genesis. In Genesis 1:20-21, God spoke to the waters, air and open firmament and said “bring forth every living creature” this allows room for the theory of evolution for animals, fowls and living creatures. That through God’s word’s “bring forth” a variety of different species could have come forth or perhaps his words could have been the commencement of a single species. The creatures were commanded to multiply; perhaps God permitted a limited boundary for change within the genetic structure which would prohibit extreme modifications of the genes. Take for instance the perch bird, which is incapable of evolving into the form of a bald eagle or black hawk, but its beak, may change in size or shape. There are limits to every animal’s alterations however we are assured that evolution cannot be a valid argument for the existence of mankind.

The first reason man cannot come from a process of evolution is because he was not commanded by God to “come forth”. Furthermore man was ‘created’, male and female, in the “image and likeness” of God. “God formed man from the dust of the ground.” We have this in common with all species; we all share materials and bacteria that are of the earth. Yet in the creating of mankind God adds a unique characteristic, “God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and mankind became a living soul.” At the core of God’s masterful creation is that humanity is a cognizant creation. Foster states that, “This primitive man was morally awake.” (Foster, 2009, p. 215). Man’s reasoning abilities are far superior than that of anything that was “brought forth” in the earth, after all it is in the ‘image and likeness of God’ was man made.  

The second thought we must give attention to is the moral nature of mankind to do ‘good’. In Genesis’s recorded history of creation God declares all creation to be ‘good’ with one exception, mankind. God does not say that man is bad but it seems that ‘the jury is still out’ on the conclusion of creation. How can man be morally ‘good’ or ‘bad’ unless there is proof of his goodness? Therefore God created a tree bearing fruit of “the knowledge of good and evil”. Mankind’s morality would be tested daily to determine whether it is that of ‘goodness’. Dawkins cannot in good conscience use Darwinian philosophy to support the notion of a moral and soulful man. For this reason, the evolution theory of man’s existence falls dead in the water in regard to mankind’s genetic transcendence from that of the primate. Dawkins criticism of the Christian church is that we need to “grow up”. If the church “grows up” in the sense in which Dawkins suggests, we would miss the glory of God, heaven and our purpose on this earth. It is not through years of secular study that we find truth, but Jesus says, “Unless you are born again you will not see the kingdom.” “Unless you change and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.” “You have hidden these things from the wise and the intelligent and have revealed them to infants.” (Good News Publishers, 2005). The Christian aims to become as children in faith and childlike in their approach to the knowledge God reveals to mankind, thus enabling humanity to understand and receive the precious promise.

Guessing in the Darkness

Through the use of science, Dawkins has truly been misleading in his claim to have knowledge of the origins of all life, including that of the celestial and terrestrial. He does not reveal to his reader the recorded percentages of matter that scientists have not been able to obtain data for within the universe. Scientists have termed these unknown components of our universe ‘dark matter’. In astronomy and cosmology, ‘dark matter’ is the matter that exists but cannot be directly identified via optical or radio instruments. (Jeffrey, 2003) To phrase it in more commonly used language; ‘dark matter’ is all of the stuff that scientists don’t know about in space. “Dark matter constitutes 83% of the matter in our universe, whereas ‘ordinary matter’ makes up 17%.” (Maddox, 2011). Dawkins makes a bold claim on the formation of creation and all existing matter only utilizing the available 17% of what is currently known about our universe. If a student, of any focus, boasted about studying only 17% of a book, or answering only 17% of the questions on a test correctly, one may struggle to trust that such a student could provide accurate, complete or knowledgeable information. One may even consider that a student with these deficiencies would be one who predominately be one ‘guessing in the dark’, and so it is with Dawkins. While he may possess a strong presentation of thought, fancy words, and a smooth flow, when his words are all said and done one realizes that his knowledge must take its proper place to an all-wise and all-knowing God. Dawkins most dramatic theory, is simply guessing in the darkness of the unknown.  

 

Bibliography

Brouwer, S. (2008). Who Made the Moon?: A father explores how faith and science agree. Nashville: Thomas Nelson.

Corbett, J. M. (1989). Through a Glass Darkly; Reading on the Concept of God. Nashville: Abingdon Press.

Dawkins, R. (2005). The God Delusion. New York: Houghton Mifflin Company.

Dawkins, R. (2006). The Selfish Gene. New York: Oxford University Press.

Foster, C. (2009). The Selfless Gene: Living with God and Darwin. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Inc.

Good News Publishers. (2005). King James Bible. Wheaton: Good News Publishers.

Jeffrey, G. R. (2003). Creation; Remarkable Evidence of God's Design. Colorado Springs: WaterBrook Press.

Maddox, B. (2011). When Darwin was wrong. Evolution , 64-67.

Pickett, J. P., Nunberg, G., & Watkins, C. (2004). The American Heritage College Dictionary (Fourth ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.


© Copyright 2020 Dr Bertheophilus M Bailey Sr. All rights reserved.

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Reddit
  • Pinterest
  • Invite

Add Your Comments:

Comments

More Religion and Spirituality Articles