Home / Culture and Society / Science and Technology / Darwin Versus Genesis

Darwin Versus Genesis

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on TwitterShare on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on Tumblr0Share on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

Today if someone were to ask me the question "What is a life form?" I wouldn't know what to answer, and the truth is that most of us would struggle to answer this question. According to the scientists, "A life form is a self-sustaining chemical capable of evolving itself."  Is the answer to one of the biggest mysteries of the universe that simple? It certainly is not, and that answer has confused me even more. So I ask again, what is a life form?

This question has not been clearly answered despite years of research and the question, itself, has been debated for some time, without any outcome. According to the Theory of Evolution, a group of chemicals evolved to create life. The other theory argues that God created life as well as rest of the universe. As of now, neither group has provided groundbreaking evidence in order to prove their respective theory correct. Though the groups are firm on their theories and beliefs regarding the beginning of life on Earth, both the theories remain highly inconclusive and debatable to date.

Is there a way to settle this debate? Well, there is a group strongly lobbying its belief in Darwin's Theory of Evolution. This lobby has high expectations from an experiment that is being carried out in a laboratory in Florida by a group of scientists. There is a new stream of science which is known as "Synthetic Biology" and this particular science is dedicated to researching the evolution of life on Earth.  The experiment is called "Artificially Expanded Genetic Information System" and is more commonly known by its acronym "AEGIS." Under this experiment, the scientists have been trying to create a self-sustaining synthetic genetic life form which will be capable of evolving itself. Though, at the moment, "AEGIS" is in the initial stages of development, the scientists strongly believe that with enough time, the synthetic life will evolve as it is designed to do. Darwin’s theory will get a great boost, if the “AEGIS” experiment turns out to be successful.

Before Darwin loyalists start rejoicing the possible successful outcome of the "AEGIS" experiment, I would like to bring to everyone’s attention that, just like the scientists who are attempting to design life in a laboratory with combination of various chemicals, there must have been a scientist who designed and decided the first life form on the Earth. This scientist, my dear friends, is none other than the supreme powerful being whom we all call "God."

Now, thinking from a neutral perspective, I believe that both the groups are trying to garner maximum support for their theories, with an aim to achieve mass appeal for their respective group. It is assumed that the theory that attains the maximum appeal can have an edge over the other because of their acceptance by the majority. If one looks at the issue philosophically, scientists should not repeat the mistakes that God made while creating human life. Howerver, the real burning issue here is which of the two theories — Darwin or Genesis — is correct?

In my opinion it would be a better option for all of us to look at both the theories in conjunction with each other. The Darwin theory assumes that based on intelligent design, life is a mixture of chemicals evolved by natural selection, whereas, the Genesis theory assumes that day by day God created the animals, birds, trees, man and woman. So, if you look closely there are hardly any differences in both the theories and, without going into minute details, both the theories assume that the life form was created by an intelligent design. In Darwin's theory wherein the intelligent design is not given a name, the Genesis theory calls this intelligent design "God." So it would be better for both the groups to work in conjunction with each other and look at the uncovered facts or continue with their research, keeping in mind each other’s beliefs.  This way we will be a little closer to realizing the mysteries of life that have baffled humankind since long.

In addition I opine that the scientists should research life in order to learn the secrets of it and not to create an artificial intelligence/cloning in a laboratory, as we certainly wouldn't want the fiction of Frankenstein to turn into a reality.

Powered by

About Thoughts^MIND

  • X

    “scientists should not repeat the mistakes that God made”

    In every religion I can think of, God is considered perfect doesn’t make mistakes.

    “hardly any differences in both the theories”

    Yeah, except that one says things evolved up gradually on their own and the other says they were put there instantly by a lone omnipotent being in their current form. Sounds like a difference.

    “both the theories assume that the life form was created by an intelligent design”

    How is chaos theory/evolution “intelligent design”? You mean the laws of science? Ok, but then who would you say put THOSE in place?

    That said, I generally agree that these theories work better in conjunction rather than exclusively, at least until one proves the other false at the highest level.

  • There are so many logical errors in this article, and this ground has been gone over so many times, I don’t even know if I want to start weighing in here.

    About the only thing the author gets right is that the creation-or-evolution ‘controversy’ is a false dilemma. Life having been created by a god does not preclude its independent evolution, and vice versa.

    One other point, for now. There is, in the universe, probably more than one set of conditions in which life could conceivably originate. Should scientists succeed in creating life from inanimate matter in the lab, that would not necessarily mean that this was how life began on primitive Earth.

  • Laura

    Both X and Dr. Dreadful made some very good points. While I can almost see the point you are trying to make, you still seem very confused about both theories.

    One main issue I have is when you say that “scientists should not repeat the mistakes that God made while creating human life”- This statement makes it sound like 1) you know for certain that there were mistakes made in the creation of human life and 2) You know for certain that God made those mistakes. Are you two personal friends? Did God confide in you and tell you that he made a mistake? If your statement is true, then you are saying that humans are perfect, that WE make no mistakes.

    I also agree with everyone so far that both theories are correct.

  • hypermach

    Intelligent Design is creationism by another name. Evolution has nothing to do with design.

  • I would suggest reading the works of Gerald Schroeder on all of this. This article suggests the precise concept that Dr. Schroeder has been working on for at least two decades – the convergence of religion and science. Dr. Schroeder essentially documents much of what the author asserts – without the many logical and factual errors the author makes.