July 1st marks the 150th anniversary of the theory of evolution. For years, I believed that Darwin was of the devil. Now, I deeply honor his contribution to religion and my walk with God. Indeed, other than Jesus, no one has had a more positive impact on my faith and my ministry than has Charles Darwin.
For the last six years as an itinerant evolutionary evangelist, I have preached the good news of evolution from the pulpits of hundreds of churches across America. Faith can be strengthened and difficulties in life surmounted—all by bringing a mainstream scientific understanding of evolution into our religious lives. The response has been phenomenal. People of all ages and across the theological spectrum light up when they see new possibilities open for them, their loved ones, and the world. Often tearfully, always excitedly, they share their testimonials. Here is mine.
Jesus and a nurturing church community gave me a lifeline in my struggles to find sobriety as a young man. A corollary of being born again, however, was that the preachers I listened to and the authors I read told me that accepting evolution would seduce me away from godly living. At first I believed them. But then I met professors, ministers, priests, nuns, rabbis, and chaplains who not only accepted an evolutionary view of cosmos and culture but found it religiously inspiring. Soon I too came to embrace the history of everyone and everything as our common Creation story.
Today, thanks to Charles Darwin and the countless evolutionary scientists and writers he inspired—in fields as diverse as astrophysics, geology, genetics, primatology, sociobiology, and brain science—I interpret my Christian faith in far broader and more this-world realistic ways than ever before. It is obvious to me now that God didn’t stop revealing truth vital to human wellbeing back when people believed the world was flat and religious insights were recorded on animal skins. God is still communicating faithfully today, publicly, through the worldwide, self-correcting scientific enterprise. I now see science as revelatory and facts as God’s native tongue.
From this perspective, divine grace and guidance extend back billions, not just thousands, of years. Looking at the history of the universe through sacred eyes, my faith is strengthened and my heart filled with joy. No longer do I fear that my family and friends will suffer for eternity in the fires of an otherworldly hell. No longer am I led astray by my instincts—my unchosen nature. And no longer do I find it difficult to live in integrity and know the peace that passes all understanding.
When I ponder the past, I am humbled and filled with unspeakable awe and gratitude at our journey through deep time to the present moment. When I see suffering nearly everywhere today, I am overwhelmed with compassion and called to action. And when I look to the immediate or distant future, I am filled with faith, hope, and a sense of urgency to do my part in ushering in God’s kingdom on Earth as it is in heaven.
For me, the ethics of evolution are not only consistent with the teachings of religion, they advance it. An evolutionary understanding urges me to grow in morality and to expand my circles of care and compassion—even to include those who see the world in very different ways. My worship of God now includes doing everything I can to ensure a just and thriving future for planet Earth, for our children's children, and for as many species as possible. As an ordained Christian minister, I cannot imagine a higher calling for myself.
I am not, of course, trying to claim that Darwin’s legacy has been entirely positive. Just as atrocities have been committed in the name of Jesus and Christianity, so have evils been perpetrated in the name of Darwin and evolution. There will always be those who distort the work of great men and women to advance their own shortsighted and self-centered ends. But when I look back over my life and reflect on the significant people who have blessed me, my relationships, and my world, Jesus and Darwin are at the top of my list.
Rev. Michael Dowd is the author of Thank God for Evolution (Viking), which has been endorsed by five Nobel Prize-winners and dozens of other scientific and religious leaders.
RSS
Comments
talking about bringing the gap, here's another. Give it time, plenty more to be found.
www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080709144213.htm
The feeling is mutual.
I'm heading to bed. I've got your websites written down, and will check them out at my earliest convenience. Thank you for the mature discussion. It's nice to not have to deal with pubescent people who like to name call.
Here, you'll like this one.
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/04/as-fossil-snake.html
"Where are the fossils? "
http://www.devoniantimes.org/Order/new-order.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panderichthys
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetrapodomorpha
"then when exactly does a "thing" become another species"
When group A can no longer breed with group B, that is, at the lowest level how to determine when each group is a particular species.
"what are they called until they become another species?"
Generally sub-species, or hybrids. There are for instance examples of sub species for homo sapient fossils.
"And you haven't proved that this land-walking fish could, or could not, breed with whatever it evolved from."
Based on their fossils alone its not as easy to determine if they could interbreed, but what we know from current species and their physiology suggests they couldn't. They were too different and beyond 'sub species', they were too different to be breeding. If creationists recognize their difference in appearance relates to the ability to breed.
More over, evolution isn't predicated on finding this X animal which could breed with the next X animal and so on. The model/theory suggests/predicts we should find, if evolution is true, an intermediary group of animals which bridge the gap from a specific type of lobe finned fish to the first amphibian tetrapods. The examples I gave aren't the whole list, and don't think for a second we are done finding them, plenty more will be found. This same type of 'bridging the gap' is displayed in many lineages, some of the best preserved are of Horses and Elephants and their ancestors.
I'm sure that there were thousands of "things" that were born and lived between the walking fish and it's predecessor. Where are the fossils?
You said "There is no single mutation that results in species"
And I say "duh".
Where are the fossils of the...."things" that were in existence between the walking fish and the fish it evolved from.
And if there is no "one" single mutation, then when exactly does a "thing" become another species...and what are they called until they become another species?
"show me inter-species mutation. All you showed me was another species."
'Interspecies mutation'? There is no single mutation that results in species A diverging into species A1 and A2, the process occurs over successive generations through a process known as genetic drifting. The alles in a population are generally homogeneous, however when one group becomes physically isolated they can accrue their own unique variations and such drifting pushes the varied group further apart. If they come back in contact and breed with their ancestral group, then all is well and they can maintain their homogeneous gene pool makeup, but if they stay isolated, speciation will occur.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_drift
Once a species becomes genetically isolated, it will become less and less like its ancestral species going on their own genetic trajectory until they are no longer able to breed and produce fertile offspring with their former group. At this point they are different species, once they cross this barrier they can't go back.
a good example of this is known as ring species
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/05/2/l_052_05.html
And you haven't proved that this land-walking fish could, or could not, breed with whatever it evolved from. Therefore, according to your theory, you cannot prove that it evolved to begin with.
And you still can't show me inter-species mutation. All you showed me was another species.
"would it be another species?"
Not necessarily. If you wanted to simply say any physical changes on the outside would determine a new species, then it would be wrong, as even a person with blue eyes can breed with a brown eyed person and like wise for a population of people who had an extra set of arms. This new group however would be identified as a new ancestral species, like a sub species, they could potentially still breed with their ancestral group, but perhaps not. It all comes down to how different mommy and daddies DNA are and if and when they combine can they produce and fertile offspring, that ultimately is what matters. If they can't, then we are talking about a different species for sure.
What matters is if population A can successfully breed with population B, that is how we determine at the lowest level in biology if they are of the same species. Now, as any biologist will tell you, the same species will have some variation, but by en large they are very similar, both genetically and physiologically. This is how we can tell by looking at Homo Neanderthal fossils and their DNA that they weren't a sub species of homo sapiens, they were of their own species.
"And you said you even agreed with me that one day a fish didn't just sprout limbs and start walking."
Correct. The evolutionary process isn't an 'overnight' fish to amphibian, it is successive and cumulative adding upon existing structures and according to physical constraints. This is why at this stage I gave you Acanthostega. 'Oh but that's not a fish' you'll say, and I would agree it's not a fish, as it has limbs, shoulder blades, digits and a tail, but like a fish it had gills.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acanthostega
"I'm happy for you. A non-scientist, web runner, telling a college graduate that he's wrong."
'web runner'? you know nothing about me, maybe I work in science maybe I don't, that however is moot to the facts which I used on Wells specific one liners. Surely I could take more time and pick the rest of his article apart. Anybody can show anyone else is wrong, in the case of Wells, I just did.
also note that Wells' graduated 1st with his degree in theology from yale, only later did you musle through and become degreed in science. funny thing is, you can't really find any of this work out there, really. Look on NSA, or NSB, or NSCE and good luck trying to find his peer reviewed articles or anything that has stood up under critique. I mean check out the the reviews on his book 'Icons of Evolution', they didn't help him any.
www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icons_of_Evolution
"Where's the "Missing link" between those limbs and fins? "
Tiktaalik. read them all, not just one.
So, as I said, if people (notice the plural...meaning that it was becoming normal) were being born with another pair of arms, would it be another species?
You said if group A (people with one set of arms) could successfully breed with group B (people with two set) then they were not a different species.
So then, the fish that you talked about...the one with legs...how do you know if it was capable of breeding with whatever it evolved from?
*Then what qualifies as a new species?*
Can group A successfully breed and produce viable offspring with group B ? If not, then they indeed have separate and distinct genetic biological development (the zygote) which prevents it from occurring and therefore are, (drum roll) different species. Having arms or not makes not the slightest difference. People born without legs and or arms reproduce all the time, it's not limbs, it's their genetics and how similar they're to their mate.