An interesting article appeared this morning in the science section of AOL news. Apparently a 47 million year old fossil presumed by a branch of the scientific community to be the famous 'missing link' between humans and apes is really only that of an extinct lemur or similar creature. Yet that isn't really the pertinent issue here. That question involves why there is such concern over something which may not exist all, and is not all that important if it does.
Why presume that there must be a common ancestor to all creation, particularly when sentient creatures are involved? One of the usual arguments for that point of view is the relatively close resemblance of a few things: the bone structure of the human hand, the bird wing, and the whale fin, for example. Such close physical architecture surely indicates evolution, does it not?
Perhaps; the argument definitely has a certain logic to it. But an equally forceful theory appears rather logical itself. It could be that the similar design is because a Creator of all things found it useful to put different things together with one basic blueprint which allowed for variations on a theme. The hand, wing, and fin are similar in construction merely because it is a kind of construction which makes sense. It works well across the board.
Even that admittedly philosophic argument is not of critical importance. Creation would still come forth from a Creator, who would within reason be free to create as he she or it wills. But what is significant about the differences between the two theories is in how they offer a glimpse of the worldviews behind them. One limits human development and human dignity to what is at best happy accident, that we were merely fortunate to develop into thinking beings, while the other suggests a specialness to humanity. To wit, in any argument about evolution one point is generally ignored: how is it that cognizance came out of mere physiological events?
Answer that question, and hunches about evolution may begin to have real meaning. Until then, we make a grave error when we rob our human stature of the numinous.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
4 comments:
Why do you think these theories are mutually exclusive?
They are not necessarily mutually exclusive, Anon. Either way, God did it, and that's the salient point. I just believe that the creation angle tends to get the short end of the stick, that's all.
When you say "Creation" a lot of people think of literal Creationism.
That association hurts.
Anon - Perhaps it does, yes. But it is still creation. I'm sure that we can separate the two.
Post a Comment