Badin vs. Fredericktown
Miamisburg graduation 2012
Valley View vs. Greenville
Ellen Belcher is the Dayton Daily News opinion pages editor. She writes about state government, education, the environment, higher education and all things Dayton.
Martin Gottlieb is an editorial writer and columnist for the Dayton Daily News opinion pages. He focuses on the political process itself and does such national issues as war, the economy, taxes and Social Security, as well as a hodge-podge of local and state issues.Home > Blogs > A Matter of Opinion > Archives > 2009 > June > 12 > Entry
Guest column: Can evolution and creationism be reconciled?
Shelley Emling’s biography of Mary Anning, “The Fossil Hunter: Dinosaurs, Evolution and the Woman Whose Discoveries Changed the World,” published by MacMillan, can be preordered at www.amazon.com.
Ken Ham, whose Creation Museum in Kentucky just celebrated its second anniversary, is sure that the Earth is only about 6,000 years old and that God created everything in six divinely ordered 24-hour time slots.
To Ham, it doesn’t matter that scientists have recently unveiled Ida — the 47-million-year-old fossil hailed as the evolutionary link between modern primates and more distant species.
“No other book gives an account of origins as specifically as the Bible,” said Ham, whose museum 20 miles southwest of Cincinnati has attracted 720,000 visitors since opening on May 28, 2007.
I met Ham, founder of the nonprofit ministry Answers in Genesis, earlier this year in London after he gave a speech at Westminster Chapel, part of an ambitious effort to bring creationist theory to Britain and Europe.
I became interested in Ham’s message after writing a biography of Mary Anning, a dirt-poor girl who cajoled one never-before-seen prehistoric monster after another from their Jurassic tombs in the cliffs along England’s southern coast in the early 1800s.
Her fossil finds — ichthyosaurs, plesiosaurs, pterodactyls — paved the way for the work of Charles Darwin, whose book “On the Origin of Species” was published 150 years ago.
Like Ham, most people during Anning’s time adamantly believed that species never evolved or became extinct. Indeed, the very religious Anning likely was unsettled by the fossils she was finding — as was Darwin himself, who asked in one of his private notebooks: Who else but God could have made things happen in such a marvelous way?
I’ve spent a lot of time wondering whether anyone will ever be able to close the gap between religious beliefs and scientific evidence.
Insisting that the great flood is responsible for the fossil record, Ham argues that God created the world in six days — literally. Simply put, he says the word “day” shouldn’t be taken symbolically, because a word can never be symbolic the first time it’s used. Allegories?
But, interestingly, some of the earliest Christian theologians accepted that at least some parts of the Bible’s text, including the creation story, were meant to be taken allegorically. In the early fifth century, St. Augustine argued against the validity of a literal six-day creation in “The Literal Meaning of Genesis.”
Ham agrees that natural selection can provide an organism with an edge in its environment, but refuses to believe that the process can lead to a new species. In other words, dogs can develop new traits from one generation to the next, but dogs will always remain dogs.
But, after years and years of observation, Darwin, of course, believed there was something inherently wrong with the idea that species are fixed. So, can the two sides ever be reconciled?
Today there is a growing movement that believes one can have faith in both science and religion while emphasizing that the Bible makes no specific mention of the Earth’s age.
World-renowned evolutionary biologist Francisco Ayala has repeatedly argued that the Genesis story not be seen as a scientific treatise but rather as a declaration of God’s sovereignty over his creation.
When asked whether God exists, Ayala says he cannot prove or disprove it, arguing that the question is not one of science but one of religion. The former president and chair of the American Association for the Advancement of Science has said Darwin’s greatest accomplishment was that he removed the idea of a creator from biology. But he also hasn’t completely ruled out the idea that evolution might have been guided by God.
In today’s increasingly secular society, people love to believe that science can explain everything. But there are plenty of mysteries that have yet to be solved.
Despite decades of space exploration, for example, more than 90 percent of the mass in the universe still hasn’t been detected.
What’s out there? It’s anybody’s guess.
Scientists also can’t figure out how exactly to explain a human being’s free will, which may or may not be just an illusion.
Even years after Einstein’s theory of relativity, and amazing advancements in quantum physics, scientists can’t truly explain the world’s many wonders — such as the slow blossoming of a flower.
Perhaps one day the debate about evolution and creationism will be settled. But I doubt it. The arguments on both sides are simply too persuasive. Still, one can hope.
Permalink | Comments (9) | Post your comment | Categories: Guest Columns, Religion and Faith
Comments
By Brian
June 13, 2009 12:03 PM | Link to this
The answer is basically, No. Until such time as the creationists start using the scientific method to prove their beliefs, they will never have sufficient credibility to put them on the same level as the evolutionists, making reconciliating impossible.By TRS
June 13, 2009 4:13 PM | Link to this
I agree the answer is no; but, for different reasons. Evolutionists refuse to look at evidence such as micro biology, DNA and the single cell as evidence of a creator. There are so many gaps in the evolutionary theory those that proportit as fact are really discrediting themselves. Regardless of where you stand, evolutionists cannot answer one basic question - where did it all begin? Creationists, however, have the answer.By Raoul
June 15, 2009 11:34 AM | Link to this
Much of what I have read indicates that everything we learn through science leads to a great mystery. How does does it all tie together?By Denise
June 16, 2009 10:10 AM | Link to this
The belief that the earth is 6,000 years old and scientific support of evolution is invalid is not compatible with scientic. But the belief in God the Creator and evolution are highly compatible . Millions of people of faith hold these beliefs. Evolution does not claim to have all the answers. Evolution acknowledges that we are still learning and seeking knowledge.By Raoul
June 16, 2009 1:03 PM | Link to this
When the science community stops belittling and censoring other scientists who espoouse Intelligent Design this argument would reach a hegher level of understanding.By 21st Century Man
June 16, 2009 9:45 PM | Link to this
“The arguments on both sides are simply too persuasive.” Wrong! The creationist arguments are pure junk science. No reputable biologist wastes any time on this stupid superstitious belief in a creator who is responsible for life. Evolution explains everything we need to know about how we developed and we don’t have to waste our time on dark-ages religious nonsense.By Evan
June 17, 2009 9:43 AM | Link to this
Evolutionists have many things such as books, computers, evidence, and science to back their theories. Creationists have one, and that is faith.jjBy 21st century woman
June 17, 2009 9:56 AM | Link to this
As a believer in evolution, I disagree with 21st man. I think there are many “reputable”biologists and other scientists who believe in God as the Creator. Science and faith are not exclusive. And There is still much to be learned about evolution, as “reputable” scientists know. Creationism is not junk science, it isn’t any science.By Philman
June 18, 2009 7:32 AM | Link to this
their is plenty of Scientific evidence to prove Evolution is Bad Science, but it has been shut down by the atheist media, go to answers in gengenesis.com