Can God and Darwinism coexist?

Yes

1 of 113

by Rhonda Coyle

• 

Write now Print Invite a writer™ Add to Favorites RSS Feed Contact this writer

Before beginning I would like to clarify a possible misnomer of Darwinism. Although, Darwinism is named after Charles Darwin; the apparent father of Evolution, Darwinism incorporates the theories of many ideologies. It could be stated as "a melting pot of ideas" from various pioneers addressing both social and biological changes that do indeed occur. In Wikipedia it states:

"The term was coined by Thomas Henry Huxley in April 1860, and was used to describe evolutionary concepts, including earlier concepts such as Malthusianism and Spencerism. In the late 19th century it came to mean the concept that natural selection was the sole mechanism of evolution, in contrast to Lamarckism, then around 1900 it was eclipsed by Mendelism until the modern evolutionary synthesis unified Darwin's and Gregor Mendel's ideas."

Although the debate over the emergence of a new species through evolutionary processes has yet to be "proven," there are less controversial theories that can and are shown, to be true. Natural selection is the most prevalent of these and said to be one of the cornerstones of modern biology. Wikipedia defines this as:

Natural selection is the process by which heritable traits that make it more likely for an organism to survive and successfully reproduce; become more common in a population over successive generations. It is a key mechanism of evolution.

The problem I see between "God" and "Darwinism" is ignorance; on the part of, well both sides actually. It is obvious that "Evolution"; being a "process", must necessarily require something to proceed. Evolution does not exclude God by any stretch of the imagination, neither does it try. Interpretationalists who "lack understanding" are the cause for the entire ruckus and we simply cannot teach the foolish that are unwilling "to gain understanding".

The fundamental idea of evolution is simply change...and it is empirically evident that things do indeed change. In order for a thing to change, it must first be an existent thing. Do they say that evolution is cause for the "Big Bang"? I do not believe so. Therefore creationists who wish to argue God must take their argument to the "Big Bang" theorists. There is no absolute verifiable scientific evidence that can show a complete transformative mutation of any one species to the next. So I would aver to say; the argument is but human natures incessant need of power and control (ego) that wishes to run the show. Let them argue, sooner or later their hot air will eventual die out. Or perhaps they will just transfer their energy consumption on to something other. These types are the ones who will never be satisfied and will always impede progress.

I wish to note that by the use of the word progress here; I am not saying progress does happen. The point I wish to make; clearly I will add, is: "for progress to actually occur, it requires an ability to "raise" the level of understanding in "principle" things, as they relate to nature itself." The idea of actual changes; as in evolution, is simply a non sequitur.

Principle things never change. Why this has eluded the minds of the seemingly intelligent scholars, philosophers, and scientists is indeed a great mystery to me; one who is considered foolish. There is a great quote that says: "You can't see the forest for the trees". This implies perception; as in subjective versus objective, which is man's greatest deceiver. We all see subjectively. This list is all inclusive, never exclusive: all the scientists, be them macro-ists or quantum physicists, all believers, all non-believers, all doctors, lawyers and professionals, all who posses PhD's and all who never graduated High School, all scholars, all philosophers, and all dreamers alike, from birth to death all "see" subjectively! If "THE TRUTH" be known it will never be known in this manner. It does not matter how tiny a particle/wave quantum mechanics digs up, it is still known observationally. Who then "knows" what "the-thing-itself" is in actuality?

I will even add that we do not know ourselves. If I as ask you "Who are you?" What will you say? Perhaps, I am a mother or a father, a doctor or a nurse, a mechanic or chemist, etc., etc., etc. This is not who I am or who you are; these are "what's", merely roles we project over there because positionally we cannot see our "self". If we cannot know ourselves objectively how can any of us claim to say we see anything objectively? Logic and reasoning is as "sound" as the premise. In ALL perception this premise is our understanding. I tell you "hey this is a cup" and now we both "see" the cup. We agree this is a cup, and say; "because we agree we both "see" the cup then; it is not only self-evidently a cup, but justifiably so". Dare I remind anyone who may be interested in such things; "self-evident" means evident to itself, not the observer. We do love to amuse ourselves with frivolous "delusions of grandeur" as it relates to our "knowledge". But in the end, all this knowledge will eventually lead right back to where the problem emerged; being "aware of self" to "self-aware". Or; better stated as, being objectively known to subjectively misunderstood.

Let us not waste time foolishly asking questions like "Can God and Darwinism coexist?" Isn't it obvious they already do exist? If the "God" idea, or the "Darwinism" idea, were not both already existent; here and now, how is it that we should ask such a question? If they did not exist here and now; we simply could not be asking this question, in the first place. Could one idea displace another's idea in truism? Which idea is true? What is true is objective. Who sees other than from their own eyes? Who understands other than their own experiential evidence? If I may be so bold as to suggest a rather obvious answer to my question; in the most non prejudicial manner I can muster, simply NO ONE!

Let me end this with a quote; from the bible, of all places:

1 Corinthians 1:19 "For it is written: "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate." 20 Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?"

Does not the very idea of this question: "Can God and Darwinism coexist?" evidence the frustration of the so-called intelligent? ... or... Is it not also the foolishness of the wisdom of man's "lack of understanding"; that he should haggle incessantly, over subjective opinions?

Eccl 11:15 "Just as you do not know the mystery of how the breath comes to a baby being formed in a mother's womb; so you cannot understand the work of God, the Maker of all things."

Learn more about this author, Rhonda Coyle.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.