Some Christians who reject evolutionary theory argue that it conflicts with their understanding of a loving God. Put simply, they think it would be unloving for God to create sentient life using such a wasteful process; one with so many "dead ends".
But this argument only holds if you think of evolution as a tool for creating homo sapiens. But what if you're a little more skeptical about the worth of human beings? I mean, we can be pretty nasty little organisms. And perhaps we too are a step in the evolutionary process. Maybe our current set of DNA has yet to be perfected, and God's Ultimate Creation is still waiting in the wings.
Given these uncertainties, it seems more convincing to argue that homo sapiens (while groovy) is not the only part of the creation that God really cares about. Instead of saying that evolution is wrong because it allows for "dead-end" species, we should say that God valued the extinct species just like he values their ancestors, and no part of the chain has been exempt from God's oversight and care.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Unless I'm mistaken, Romans 8:18-25 talks about God's plans to redeem his creation as well as us homo sapiens. Seems to indicate to me that we are not the only part of creation that matters. Wonder what redeemed lizards look like?
Probably like Giant Glowing Winged Reptilian Harbingers of Doom! ....at least if you're like a redeemed butterfly or spider.
I think you got a point you young whippersnapper (hey younger is younger) I think we are on level with a well-loved science experiment, and I think God will get first prize.. for me at least, I can't speak for you.
-- Me
Giant Glowing Winged Reptilian Harbingers of doom?!
Sweet.
But I'm starting to think I may have to add some qualifying language to this one. I mean, it seems a little silly to imply that newts are worth as much as people, particularly considering the passage that asks "aren't you worth more than a bunch of sparrows?"
Well, either God created things using a process with "dead ends" or he created life all at once, including flesh-eating bacteria. If its unloving to use "dead ends" then wouldn't it be unloving to create flesh-eating bacteria. I would also say that we are worth more than the bacteria.
Right. Also, if their problem with accepting such a well-supported theory is the waste, there must be a lot of other things they don't believe in - for example, America's consumption of energy.
What if we are a dead end species?
Post a Comment