Anthropology - Other

Views on the Theories of Evolution



Tweet
Matt Barron's image for:
"Views on the Theories of Evolution"
Caption: 
Location: 
Image by: 
©  

It is the fundamental objective of every single religion to convert every human being possible to its way of thinking, to promote its tenets as the only true belief system worth adhering to and to convince all who will listen (as well as those who will not) that there is no end to life, just re-birth. That there are as many atheists throughout the world today as there are true believers proves emphatically that religion has failed to present its case effectively enough.

There is, of course, one simple explanation for this, that belief in religion requires one immense act of faith: the placing of one's complete trust in an unseen, unproved and untested force. For many this is the very heart of their belief: Where is the reward for believing in a transparent, tangible ideal? For others the opposite is true: Why surrender your entire existence to an abstract, contentious theory'?

It is this central debate which lies at the heart of religion's conflict with science. On the one hand, religion stands tall as the source of peace, comfort and, most importantly, hope. On the other hand, science seeks to eliminate all doubt - and hence worry - concerning our place in the universe, and our fate, through the projection of grand and testable theories. So how can these two strongly opposing biases ever be united? Indeed, will it ever be possible to achieve such a thing? The promoters of the theory of Intelligent Design certainly believe so, and driven by the perceived, gradual marginalisation of the church-going faithful, they have sought to rectify the matter by attempting to solve Christianity's flaws through scientific experimentation, and science's flaws through Christianity's interrogation.

Notably, the proponents of Intelligent Design have launched their assault on scientific wisdom by placing the theory of evolution firmly in their crosshairs. By targeting this - atheists' most potent weapon - ID supporters hope to nurture seeds of doubt in the minds of those who accept evolution as gospel. And by attacking the integrity of this widely-respected theory, IDs campaigners believe that they can proselytise the ambivalent and bring back into the fold their lost flock. However, what IDs supporters fail to realise is that in attempting to bridge the gaping chasm between Christian doctrine and science, their theory has committed the worst sin of all: it has failed to find a respected bedfellow in either camp.

Upon close inspection its principles have failed to convince the scientific community, and indeed the US federal court. As a scientific theory, ID simply fails to stand up to scrutiny. But far more damaging to its cause is the very harm it is inflicting upon the 2000 year-old institution it is attempting to protect. Creationism is central to Christian dogma. Evolution is synonymous with secular, atheistic dogma. By proclaiming that evolution up to a point is acceptable within ID theory, but that an overall creator is responsible for the kick-start mechanism, IDs promoters are automatically calling into question the authority of the Bible. Either the biblical account of the birth of humankind is true, or it is not. There can surely be no in-between. If the biblical account of the birth of humankind is a metaphor, then Creationism as a concept is redundant. If Creationism as a concept is redundant, Intelligent Design can only stand up as an independent, modern-day, semi-religious theory, unaffiliated with any that have gone before it. It simply cannot allow itself to be associated with any Creationist-centric religion.

It is this position that ID should adopt, and its instigators owe it to followers of God and/or science to reveal their agenda openly and transparently. Only by doing this will Intelligent Design stand any chance of being accepted and respected within the mainstream. And who knows, it may even turn out to be the most satisfying theory for humankind's existence we will ever have?

Tweet
More about this author: Matt Barron

From Around the Web




ARTICLE SOURCES AND CITATIONS