“The theory of Evolution is enough to prove that life does not require a creator” How far do you agree?
What is the question asking?
- The theory of evolution disproves God as the creator
- Do you agree with this?
What viewpoints will we look at?
- Creationists – They would disagree. They believe god created everything and not evolution
- Scientific Materialists- They would agree. They are ‘rational’ and would believe that the evidence of evolution is all you need.
- Creation Scientists – Disagree with the viewpoint. They believe in intelligent design and not evolution. There is too much complexity
- Liberal Christians – They would disagree. The science is the how the religion is the why. God started the process of evolution.
V – Creationists Christians believe the Bible to be completely true and a historically accurate account of the Origins of both the universe and life.
I – Therefore they would disagree with this statement because evolution is not mentioned in the bible. Instead they would believe the story in the bible which is the story of Adam and Eve as found in Genesis 2. The story is of God first creating a man named Adam and then creating Eve from his rib. These two humans were then given the power to rule over God’s earth and “go forth and multiply”.
E – This view is supported by Alan Hayward, a physicist who had said, the New Testament always refers to the early characters of Genesis as historical figures, if we start saying that Adam and Eve are fiction, how do we decide who was a true figure?
His point here is that it is important to believe everything in the bible is true and that you shouldn’t pick and choose what bits of it are true and what bits are metaphorical.
W- However, critics of this argument would argue that in the Bible there are two creation stories that would contradict themselves. For example Genesis 1 says that animals were created first and Genesis 2, humans are created first. This is a weakness because it makes people question the integrity of the bible.
S- Creationist Christians would argue that by using the Bible as the ultimate guide to truth and not as a theory then they are able to answer the big questions in life such as the purpose of life and how life was created without speculation nor theorising over scientific evidence. They would disagree with the statement the theory of evolution proves that life does not require a creator because the bible is the truth and the word of god and evolution is not mentioned in the Bible and thus it is not a truth.
V – On the other hand Scientific Materialists would agree with the statement, as they believe science is all you need to prove or disprove something. They would say they base their viewpoint on rational thought and would discredit the belief in the supernatural such as God.
I – Scientific Materialists would discredit the idea of a god because in their opinion there is no evidence to prove God’s existence and as such do not believe that God or anything else created the universe.
E- Scientific Materialists would back up this view by citing Darwin, a biologist who is famed for his theory of Natural Selection. This theory is that based on Darwin’s observation of different species from around the world, the species who had adapted to their surroundings were more likely to survive and therefore breed. It is recognised that humans therefore evolved from a common ancestor in the primate family and thus was not created as human being as the story of Adam and Eve in the Bible tells.
This theory is further supported by the discovery of DNA in the 1950’s. It was proven that DNA can mutate which would mean that over time species who’s DNA had mutated to adapt to their surroundings would survive and breed. This is the evidence that Scientific Materialists would need to support their view point that life does not require a creator, it can just happen by chance.
W- There are limitations to this theory and critics would argue that it is impossible to observe the evolution that has happened and it is based on empirical evidence. There is fossil evidence, however this evidence is limited and scientists are still making discoveries and filling gaps in the missing links in evolution. This is a strength because there is empirical evidence to back up a theory and it can be further proven as more scientific discoveries are made. Creationist Christians would argue that their theory of there being a creator is based on empirical evidence, The Bible.
S- However, in order to agree that the Bible is empirical evidence would require faith in God and the bible as truth, thus it is a circular argument. By using the Scientific Method, scientific materialists would argue that evolution is the best theory to fit into questions about the role of a creator in the origins of life. Although there is no complete conclusion on whether there is a creator or not, Scientific Materialist believe that the Theory of Evolution is indeed enough to prove that there is no requirement for a creator due to the random mutations of DNA and how species can evolve over time.
V – Creation Scientists would disagree with the statement that the theory of evolution is enough to prove that there is no requirement for a creator.
- Creation Scientists are Christians who would use the stories of the bible and their own scientific research to back up the Bible as the truth. The Institute of Creation Research is dedicated to proving the biblical account of creation, through scientific research.
E- The argument that Creation Scientists would use to support the origin of life as designed by God would be Intelligent Design. They would say that elements of the human body are too complex to have happened just by chance. For example the human eye. The human eye has 6 million ‘cones’ within it that are all perfectly aligned and in the correct place that allows humans to see in colour and in detail. Creation Scientists argue that this cannot be a mutation that it is so perfect it has been designed and therefore this cannot work with the theory of evolution.
W- Critics of this argument would argue that if human beings were so complex that they require a creator, does a being so complex and intelligent that could design such a species not also require a creator. This is a weakness because it creates a circular argument, if we are so complex we require a creator, then is the creator so complex it requires a creator and so forth.
S- However, Creation Scientists would say that God is infinite, meaning he had no beginning and no end, therefore does not require creator. Critics may counter this argument by saying that if it is acceptable to believe that God does nto require a creator, it could also mean that humans do not require a creator. Creation Scientists would disagree that the theory of Evolution is enough to prove that there is no requirement for a creator because they do not believe in the Theory of Evolution as it is not mentioned in the Bible. They would say that Creation Science is reliable because they are using the scientific method to prove the Bible, by using the Bible and science together it would therefore strengthen the argument.
V – Liberal Christians would disagree that the theory of Evolution proves there is no creator, because they believe the two can work together, the science explains the how and religion explains the why life was created.
- Liberal Christians believe that scientific discoveries will back up the Bible and therefore can work together.
E- Liberal Christians would believe that stories in the Bible are metaphorical. For example the story of Adam and Eve was written to show how God command humans to look after the earth and what the consequences would be if they disobeyed him. The bible was written in this way to help humans understand God’s power and grace without the need for scientific knowledge.
W – A weakness, as already discussed is that if we take some parts of the bible as metaphors, what we would know to take as truth. To take this further, if you are willing to accept some of God’s word as not being the complete truth are you being unfaithful to the true word of God. Many may argue that you are being unfaithful.
S- However many would counter argue by saying that by accepting the Bible and Science as something that can work together because it the correct use of the intelligence that god has given human beings. If God revealed everything to begin with then people may not understand it all, or be able to understand it. Therefore this is why the Bible is written in this manner. This would show that the Theory of Evolution doesn’t in fact disprove God but instead will support the theory of God being a creator because it is him that started this theory, this is what Liberal Christians would believe as this would fill in the gaps that are yet to be answered in science as to what humans purpose is.
In conclusion, I agree that the theory of evolution is enough to prove that life does not require a creator because scientific evidence shows that mutations can randomly occur without being created or tampered with. This would mean that species survival is complete chance and doesn’t require a creator. It could be counter argued by those with a faith in God that evolution is all part of God’s plan and would support the existence and role of God as a creator.