Lesson No. 5d - Origin of Species, Life's Application

For scientists and non-scientists alike, jumping through the mental hoops of deciphering the most correct theory of the origin of species may seem on the surface to have little use in practical day-to-day living. Hopefully we will come to see, however, that after pealing back the superficial covering of the matter we will come to understand the profound implications that lie beneath.

To begin, we need to understand the core, fundamental purposes and values of the two previously discussed theories. Darwin’s theory of evolution and speciation is at the core dissatisfied with the recorded account of divine biologic creation that preceded it, described in Genesis. Naturalists of the day (1800s), Darwin prided himself as one, approached science from the vantage point of ‘only what is seen can be real’. This approach disregards the possibility of a divine creator and seeks to explain physical bioprocesses from the preconceived notion that they created themselves.

Intelligent Design, on the other hand, was first introduced by Phillip Johnson, in the late 1900s. Johnson, neither of his Ph.D.s held in biology, was convinced that nature is too complex to have created itself and must have been created by a divine creator. Johnson sought out the most convincing arguments for and against the Darwinian Evolutionary theory and concluded that there are too many items that did not ‘seem probable’—to use the words of Darwin—enough to support the deeply held beliefs originating from Darwin.

Now to daily life application; both of these theories require a subscription to a belief that will never be proven in a lab. It is just that: a belief that either Moses, the Jewish patriarch, was inspired by the original Creator Himself and wrote as he was instructed by the Creator, or a belief that no such Creator exists and the origin of species must have necessarily happened without His intervention. It is my estimation that if one subscribes to the theory of DE it is because, like Darwin himself, that one has a preconceived notion that Genesis is insufficient or in error. If one holds to either creationism or ID that one has the belief that Genesis is sufficient and a reputable source for such information.

I aim to post the final part of Lesson No. 5 this weekend...