Evolution was not
opposed as vociferously in the United States when Charles Darwin published On The Origin of Species in 1859 as it
was later in 1925. Partly, because it was shared with a small audience in 1859 and
its circulation and discussion on its merits was pre-empted by the Civil War
and Reconstruction. Even Bryan who became a leading opponent of the teaching of
evolution did not seem to have a major disagreement with the concept if it was
confined to evolution of plants and animals and exclusive of human beings.
When Darwin published The Descent of Man, in 1871, he clearly addressed human evolution but
surprisingly more people seem to focus on The
Origin than on The Descent when
they argue against evolution. Doubtlessly few people had read either book or
have read them today. However, most people who were engaged in some type of
selective breeding of plants and animals or knew of those who were could
clearly see evolution at work and would have accepted a cursory explanation of
its concept.
The line in the sand was
drawn when evolution was extended to encompass human beings. This was, is, and
will always be the challenge for most people who cannot conceive that their
ancestors could have evolved from a lower order of primates. Even when you
consider the physical features and social behavior of both species and the “fact”
that 96% of human DNA matches chimpanzee DNA, there is a fear that
acknowledging this reality makes humans something less rather than somehow more
interconnected to the universe.
Early writers had to
imagine a beginning. They had no access to the tools we have today. If they
had, they would have written a different creation story. Even within the Bible
we can see the hands of different writers creating two creation stories which a
reasonable person would see as contradictory, but instead of accepting the
contradiction, efforts are made to create an elaborate explanation to consolidate
and rationalize them as one. It was the second creation story of Adam and Eve
which made humans a divine creation that has created the resistance to human
evolution. The first creation story which simply mentions the creation of male
and female together-- no mention of a “rib,” --would have been more amenable to
a theistic evolution but not as personal or misogynistic as written by early
men who saw the need to create a hierarchy with themselves and their
descendants as the direct link to God.
Imagine if Genesis had
this version. In the beginning the Earth was a mass of molten lava exploding
from volcanoes. As it slowly began to cool over billions of years, various
organic compounds began to form and as these compounds coalesced into large
masses, a cell was formed and God saw that it was good. God allowed a wall to
separate one cell from another and as the cell moved its wall shifted and as
the wall met itself it created two cells. God saw that it was good and allowed
the cells to continue to divide. Then God saw that some of the cells
specialized in breaking down the soil and sharing the products with other cells
and some cells were more attracted to light and could use this energy to create
new compounds to help the other cells and God saw this as good. Over time these
cells grew and expanded and animals were created and some of these animals
could carry their offspring inside their bodies and God saw that this was good.
The other animals of the same species were a little bigger and they tended to
do the heavier work and hunted the lesser animals and God saw that this was
good. And God noticed that these animals spread all over the Earth and as they
spread they learned to talk, but each place had different sounds for different
things and when they met they couldn’t always understand each other, so they
would fight and kill each other and God saw this and it was not good, but what
could God do? God moved on to another solar system and let them work it out.
Don what an intriguing take on Genesis!! You pose a very interesting question, "What if Genesis had this version..." I think this is an excellent and thought provoking challenge. With this version, the debate on evolution would look drastically different yet I wonder if innately as humans we would have found yet another alternative opposition to this 'Bible story'. Granted, there is scientific evidence to help back this version up more... but I'm posing a question from a sociological stand point and wonder if it's inevitable that humans will always find a way to present alternate sides and somewhat disagree with eachother. Playing Devil's advocate here with your Genesis version, would this have spawned a movement of believers that God is actually an alien being who used Earth as a petri dish and saw where mistakes were made only to, as you say, 'moved on to another solar system' and try again? Then are we just a giant lab experiment? Thus, the birth of the Perti-origin believers movement!! hahaha! Joking obviously but fun to imagine. Great post Don!
ReplyDeleteAn alternate creation story with just the barest allusion to what science has taught us about our nature and lineage would have gone such a long way to disarm subsequent rancor and dispute between science and religion. Of course there will always be outliers and conspiracy nuts, but if ALL the good books converged on "everybody's story," oh what a world it could be.
ReplyDelete