A.) As the theory of evolution has become more and more prominent in discussions nowadays, I should mention that something strange has happened, when the people who believe adamantly in evolution make the jump from science to philosophy. They leave the realm of the scientific, and begin to draw conclusions that put them into the realm of philosophy. Often their philosophy becomes a worldview, and when this occurs, they have firmly left the realm of the scientific-only.
B.) As such, I think the theory of Evolution proper has caused much confusion. And in particular, as it pertains to some folk using this theory to discredit Christianity -- I feel the need to mention that this is a complete Red Herring or distraction. As Dr. William Lane Craig has noted, Genesis 1 in the Bible leaves itself open to a wide range of interpretations, not necessarily counting out that one creature can give rise to another. The important thing comes into play when we discuss the point at which man received his “human-ness”. That is the real question, not what events preceded it.
C.) G.K. Chesterton relates this very well in his book The Everlasting Man. In it he reminds us that once we strip away all of the popular literature about what the cave-man may or may not have looked like, about what he may or may not have done; we are left with the actual evidence presented to us. One piece of evidence being the cave paintings of early man.
D.) Chesterton writes: “It is the simple truth that man does differ from the brutes in kind and not in degree; and the proof of it is here; that it sounds like a truism to say that the most primitive man drew a picture of a monkey and that it sounds like a joke to say that the most intelligent monkey drew a picture of a man…. Art is the signature of man”.
E.) Commenting on evolution again, Chesterton writes, “For in the plain matter like the pictures (meaning cave paintings) there is in fact not a trace of any such development or degree. Monkeys did not begin pictures and men finish them; Pithecanthropus did not draw a reindeer badly, and Homo Sapiens drew it well. The higher animals did not draw better and better portraits.”
F.) I would respectfully add to this (as both many scientists and philosophers have), that the scientific specifics of how man came to be man – strictly speaking - remain a mystery. To pretend that Darwin’s theory has solved it I suspect would make even Darwin blush. To debate about it too long demonstrates only that we have missed the point, or taken the path of misdirection. The important thing is that at some point in time; man became man, and no longer just an animal. The Bible addresses that truth, and reminds us that we exist in the image of God. Science and history simply give us time-lines and imaginative hypothesis.
B.) As such, I think the theory of Evolution proper has caused much confusion. And in particular, as it pertains to some folk using this theory to discredit Christianity -- I feel the need to mention that this is a complete Red Herring or distraction. As Dr. William Lane Craig has noted, Genesis 1 in the Bible leaves itself open to a wide range of interpretations, not necessarily counting out that one creature can give rise to another. The important thing comes into play when we discuss the point at which man received his “human-ness”. That is the real question, not what events preceded it.
C.) G.K. Chesterton relates this very well in his book The Everlasting Man. In it he reminds us that once we strip away all of the popular literature about what the cave-man may or may not have looked like, about what he may or may not have done; we are left with the actual evidence presented to us. One piece of evidence being the cave paintings of early man.
D.) Chesterton writes: “It is the simple truth that man does differ from the brutes in kind and not in degree; and the proof of it is here; that it sounds like a truism to say that the most primitive man drew a picture of a monkey and that it sounds like a joke to say that the most intelligent monkey drew a picture of a man…. Art is the signature of man”.
E.) Commenting on evolution again, Chesterton writes, “For in the plain matter like the pictures (meaning cave paintings) there is in fact not a trace of any such development or degree. Monkeys did not begin pictures and men finish them; Pithecanthropus did not draw a reindeer badly, and Homo Sapiens drew it well. The higher animals did not draw better and better portraits.”
F.) I would respectfully add to this (as both many scientists and philosophers have), that the scientific specifics of how man came to be man – strictly speaking - remain a mystery. To pretend that Darwin’s theory has solved it I suspect would make even Darwin blush. To debate about it too long demonstrates only that we have missed the point, or taken the path of misdirection. The important thing is that at some point in time; man became man, and no longer just an animal. The Bible addresses that truth, and reminds us that we exist in the image of God. Science and history simply give us time-lines and imaginative hypothesis.
No comments:
Post a Comment