...

When Does it stop being just another opinion….

I find it hard to give my own personal views or opinions in the debate/discussion of Evolution and the origin of life. Not because I don't have an opinion—I most certainly do. Rather, my speculations are merely drops in the bucket compared to the overarching truth that we humans have yet to tap into and may never have the capacity to understand.

That being said, I will, I guess, give that pointless opinion.

To me, evolution on earth is hardly a questionable matter. Without going into detail and referencing my newly gained knowledge equipped to me for battle by my Plan II biology class, to me, natural selection is a fact and evolution is happening, has happened, and will continue to happen. It is not necessarily an evolution towards progress and a higher intelligence, although it does seem fitting that smarter creatures will be able to survive better in certain situations. There is evolution, however, and so we were most certainly not plopped onto this earth at the dawn of time or merely a few days after the creation of the universe.

The literal interpretation of the Christian book of Genesis would say otherwise. Opponents of Darwinian Evolution were sure of their religion's preachings: "Just 20 years ago, they were insisting that Genisis' account of a six-day creation was literally true," however, the struggle against Darwin played favor to evolution, and "the creationists regrouped" and conceded that the Bible's account may be a lyrical, informal explanation instead (61). And though I would most definitely not accept Genesis as it is, I also have a problem with a fundamental belief in Christian doctrine, or most religious doctrine. Man is supposedly created in God's image, and God dictated that man should "be the masters of the fish of the sea, the birds of heaven, the cattle, all the wild beasts, and all the reptiles that crawl up on the earth (26)." Though this does seem to be the course and advice humans have taken over the last millennia or so, I have serious misgivings that we were created or evolved simply to own and control the rest of life on earth. It is an accepted mandate because it suits human beings and their trumped up ideas of grandeur on earth.

In fact, religion, and not just Christian religion, always frustrated me to no end because it conveniently answered all questions that may plague a growing, questioning human mind. Where did we come from? "The Gods put us here." Why are we here? "To tame the Earth." Why did this happen to me? "Because the Gods wanted it that way." What happens when we die? "You go to an afterlife." These dogmatic answers, though very comforting and possibly plausible to people in the past that were not aware of the scientific and technological advances that human beings are capable of creating and understanding (and which challenge many of these answers), they remind me of the simplistic and untrue responses that my parents and elders used to give me as a child when I asked uncomfortable or hard to explain questions. Where do babies come from? "The stork brings them." Where did Rover go? "We took him to doggie land where he can play!" Where's Grandma? "Oh, she's watching over you! And she's up there in heaven with the angels" These explanations were taken very literally by my 8 year old mind, and imagine how disconcerting it was to realize with my growing intelligence that these repeated reassurances don't hold water in the face of the new knowledge I was acquiring.

However, as a child growing up, what do we do with the sugary crap that is fed to us by adults who feel it is too difficult or don't know how to explain the truth? We either adapt it to the new truths we learn, or we simply throw it out for a whole new set of ideals and understanding. Grandma is dead. So is the dog. They're not coming back. And what? My parents did what and now I'm here???

Like growing up, science and religion over time have been questioned in light of new discoveries. Science, however, has the easy capacity to accept, acknowledge, and adapt to new developments, as soon as enough facts are presented, and in fact it is required! To do so with religion, however, would invalidate and shake the underpinnings of its very appeal to begin with. There are numerous examples through history, and it wasn't until science became increasingly separate from religion did we have the largest scientific breakthroughs. This happened out of necessity. Religion initially throughout history has tried to thwart scientific advances because of the questions it may plant in people's minds. Religion had answers for everything, although they were never very good. The world is round. Nope. The earth revolves around the sun. Nope. There's this gigantic far-reaching universe and stars that are inconceivably far away. Uh…we'll get back to you on that.

These discoveries directly challenged religious teachings, and science and its breakthroughs could never be fully explored until there was a divorce between the two. And Darwinism was the mistress that necessitated it all.

Such inflexibility within religion has been one of the most difficult things for me to reconcile. The fact that religion seems to have all the answers, and to challenge these answers will send you into a painful afterlife is frightful, but only that. Darwin puts it best: "The day will come when this will be given as a curious illustration of the blindness of preconceived opinion. These authors seem no more startled at a miraculous act of creation than at an ordinary birth. (Origin of Species, 306)." The preconceived opinion of the religions is blinded by a lack of wonder and acceptance that we DON'T know it all, but I understand why humans hold on begrudgingly to the "facts" of the world as their religion sees it. If all the challenges were to be accepted, they could be the downfall and destruction of religion as we know it—and that is not necessarily a good thing. Religion, in many ways, has a practical societal function. The evidence is clear and I don't feel it is necessary to delve into that. (The mythical Santa Clause is a device used to make kids behave???)

As far as meeting between religion and evolution: Darwin was not trying to overthrow religion or propose something controversial. Over years of observation he simply presented an idea that to him was the unequivocal truth and explanation of variation of species. And through discoveries and further exploration and understanding, science concurs. We were not simply granted rule of earth. Whatever may have originally given us life is another matter. Darwin, in the last chapter of Of Origin of Species says, "There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or one; and that, while this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been and are being evolved. (Origin 316)." This open-ended initial sparking of life is what may give intelligent design some leverage. However, intelligent design theories emerge in order to combat Darwin's natural selection and random mutations proposition. Intelligent design theorists believe that life was set into motion and given a direction to go in. This rationalization serves to reassure us that we are not here by chance, and that yes, man is supreme and will always be supreme. Chance does not allow for "something outside the natural realm" to be "at work (61)." In the words of David Hall, "Science seeks to explain the natural world through natural explanations." I will concede that I believe there is an overarching force that rules the universe—something that establishes the natural laws of gravity and matter. However, "that the universe is too complex to have been created by chance mutations and evolution" is confining our beliefs to something worldly, the infinitive possibilities of the universe can never been comprehended with such a narrow view (61). The question arises, "how did all that information 'get' in there," referring to the complex information in all cells (63). The source of this information is then personified by a human analogy. "If I see someone's name carved in a tree, I know by experience that an intelligent creature carved that name. It wasn't created by the natural processes of the wind or the rain… if I see the shape of an animal in a cloud, I conclude this shape was formed by natural causes. (63)" I find this explanation and conclusion a bit confusing. First off, both occurrences cited are from natural causes. A human being is natural, as well as the forces of weather. It would be equally natural if we saw a dam built over a riverbed that was created by a family of beavers or a dam created by a river. The difference here is a deliberate creation and an accidental creation with no purpose. This is what intelligence gives people the power to do as well as all life forms—they are driven by some sort of purpose, usually survival. So this circular argument does nothing for creationism or even intelligent design. If it is true that something like the river flowing can carve out or build up a dam, then how can you steadfastly conclude that a beaver has created a dam unless you have cold hard facts about how beavers go about doing it? I.D. view insists that the organization of cells points to an intelligent designer, but there is no way to link this design to something purposeful. It could very well be set up in a way by pure accident, and this accident has served some sort of purpose in the long-run (dam): like the cloud that looks like an animal accidentally looks as such. Or a mountain that resembles a phallic carving—such stony relics could have very well been created by a large team of humans or woodpeckers, or it could just be an accident from years of erosion and weather. Similarly, there are no "tell-tale" signs about life that points out without a shadow of a doubt that "intelligence" created it. It is speculation. The way we can tell the difference between a purposeful construction and an accidental construction is through evidence, repeated cases, and basically proof grounded in facts. Before proof, however, it would be simply a hasty induction to assume that one is the cause over another.

However, this does not rule out a reigning intelligence. It just cannot be conclusively proven, especially when the God that is being proven is imagined in such a strict and unwavering fashion that leaves no room for a realistic or natural approach. So much "proof" that religious figures bring up to prove that existence of God is bunk because they're trying to prove the existence of THEIR God. There is easy room for me to believe that there is something beyond my understanding, but I believe that like matter and black holes and light and time, it is something rooted in an inexplicable cause in the universe. However, seeing how the universe itself is considered nearly infinite, accidents of life are easy for me to understand. There are an infinite amount of chances for something to happen. Sure there are some rules that these accidents must occur within, but it doesn't mean that it is anything more than this. It doesn't mean I look like the creator of these rules. Or that earth means anything in relation to the rest of the universe. And it especially doesn't mean that I mean anything in relation to infinity.