|
Well, over here in England the view is the same. Creationism went out of the window with Darwin's book. Granted there are plenty of holes in evolutionary theory, but the evidence for it is very, very strong. And yet both arguments have their limits
I personally find the concept of directed, instantly perfect creation unappealing. It is an inelegant solution and does not fit the facts of evolution.
It is a fact that gradual changes in the DNA structure of a chain of individuals can cause physical change over time. Such mutations can be seen clearly, the change of colouring in Moths in industrialised areas being one such example.
However, evolution has to start somewhere. There needs to be a basic foundation for future mutations, but I feel that this is a seperate issue. Evolution does not explain first-generation creation.
In order for life to fit into an ever-changing world, there must be adaptation.
I do not wish to deny the core argument in this issue; that of creation versus evolution. It simply occurs to me that the supposed nature of God (Gods, Spirit etc, whatever you want to call a Prime Cause) has been slightly overlooked.
First-Order creation may very well have taken place. However from then on, constant changes in the nature of the world neccesitate constant adaptation. To have God tinkering in His/Her/It's own creations would be to deny the supposed perfectness of God, as it suggests the creation of something flawed. A self-perfecting mechanism, when viewed from this angle, is indeed a materstroke. Creating life that then has the ability to change and adapt to its own environment without outside help is an incredibly elegant solution to both problems.
|