 | By DLeigh-Ellis
November 12, 2009 | Share |
The creation debate has reasserted its surly Neanderthal head in recent years. Arguably, this is more a result of the antipathy between those who term themselves as ‘creationist’ and the scientific establishment, heralded by talented orators such as Richard Dawkins. The greatest continual outpouring of creationist theory probably comes from the Conservative, fiercely Christian population of America, perhaps symbolized most clearly in the policies of the last US president whose policy directions were consistently inspired by his interpretation of his faith.
The problem is that between the black and white polarity of the Creation vs Darwin debate, all room for shades of grey have been lost. The question of creation has become a dirty rag, a passionately argued political hot potato thrown between the believers and non-believers with more spin than the wheels of Ezekials chariot.
It is becoming increasingly apparent however, that the Christian reaction away from Darwinist theory is more instinctive than intellectual. Characters such as Dawkins have mobilized Darwinist theory to such an extent that it is often misperceived as an area of thought monopolized by pro-atheist leanings. Perhaps it is the Christian assumption in the literal truth of the Genesis account that prevents a large number of individuals realizing the potential duality of the creation story and Darwinist theory.
Traditionally, Judaism has had less of a problem with Darwinist theory. In recent years this has taken the form of books such as Nathan Aviezer of Bar-Ilan University’s often cited study, ‘Fossils and Faith,’ which attempted to reunite the religious and scientific worlds through a scientifically-conscious interpretation of passages in the Torah. The Genesis account of creation presents a gradual development of simple life-forms up to the more complex. Vegetation precede fish, which in turn precede bird and animal life, ultimately leading to mankind itself. This popular method of reconciling creation and evolution is trumped by Aviezer who finds a deeper significance in the disparity between the usage of the Hebrew word vayivra, (to create,) used to describe the earlier sea-creatures and the word vaya’as, (to make,) used to describe the land animals. The difference between the choice of words is paramount as the use of vaya’as suggests that the later animals are made from pre-existing materials. They are not ‘created’ in the same manner as the first spark of life but are a product of the reconfiguration of materials already present.
Aviezer’s approach is distinctly more intelligent than the standard creationist argument that elements of biology are simply too complicated to have come about by random chance. This argument often relies on a misunderstanding of evolutionary theory, which is not working towards a ‘goal,’ but is instead the result of a billion random mutations. The classic example of this school of thought is exemplified through the creationist attitude towards the human eye, perceived as unable to operate without all its individual components and therefore direct proof of a guiding intelligence. This approach fails to account for the many other (simpler) devices for visual reception found amongst the animal kingdom.
Aviezer’s approach to reuniting the dialogues of science and faith is not revolutionary. The 2001 Soncino Press Chumash contains a fascinating flipside to the traditional conclusion that evolutionary theory automatically cast doubts on the origin of man. The Chumash argues that ‘instead of evolution ousting design and purpose from nature, ‘almost every detail is now found to have a purpose and a use.’’ The apparent complexity in life on Earth that is perceived by Darwinists as abject proof against the existence of a higher power is perceived by the chumash as the very proof of such a power. Ultimately it comes down to perception, moreover the question of where one locates ones own persuasion within the bigger structure of the debate. It appears that creationists and Darwinists are capable of reaching mutually independent conclusions when confronted with the same points of interest, primarily due to the influence of their respective agendas.
The problem ultimately lies with the scientific assumption that the genesis account of creation is the full extent of the Judeo-Christian analogue regarding the subject. Christianity relies heavily upon the literal word of the oft translated and retranslated genesis passage and it is the adherence to this strict literal dogma that has forced the religious to back themselves into an illogical corner, arguing bizarre tracts such as ‘dinosaur bones being placed by Gd to test the faith of humans.’ Judaism opposes this approach through incorporation of three further levels of Torah beyond the literal word. The self-styled ‘jewish bohemian,’ David Krafchow, concisely articulates these levels: ‘the Talmud-Book of Law is how the pieces of the puzzle fit together; the Midrash-Book of Metaphor fills in the story; and lastly the Zohar-Book of Secret puts the last pieces in their place by answering all the outstanding questions.’ Krafchow may be viewed as something of a maverick by jewish establishments yet he does manage to offer a concise rationale for reconciling evolution and divine creation, ‘the Torah sees evolution as a billion year process causing creation to come closer to the creator.’ In other words the creation story may be suitably named in the manner that it details what happened at the beginning yet despite this, creation should be recognised as an ongoing process. Whilst Darwinists must recognise that the genesis account is not the be all and end all of the creation story, creationists must also refrain from misinterpreting the science and logic of evolutionary theory itself. Both parties must take more time to understand the reasoning behind the opposing theorist’s logic.
Originally written for Summit, the University of York's Christian magazine.
