Erica asked:

What should I believe: Darwin or Genesis?

============

I take "believe" to mean something close to "accept without questioning" or "accept as an
assumption". In that case, my position is that one should believe neitherDarwin norGenesis. What
one should do is look at the logic behind the position, and at the evidence for (or against) it.

What is the logic and evidence for the Judeo-Christian creation myth being true? Is there more
reason for that particular creation myth to be the case than for, say, the Hindu creation myth? The
Buddhist? What about the creation myths of the American Indians? If you want, you can probably find
literally dozens of creation myths... just because you have been raised in the tradition of one doesn't
give that one particular priority, does it?

Thus, one of the (many!) problems with what is termed the "creationist" position is that it takes the
Judeo-Christian myth as the truth, neglecting all the others. "Intelligent design" (which is thinly
disguised creationism) neglects the many myths that have a god which creates the world fairly
spontaneously and then pretty much sits back and lets it run — like Buddhism or Hinduism (if I
understand them correctly). In fact, in at least some forms of Buddhism (a more widespread religion
than Christianity, by the way), the universe just is a kind of universal mind which just sort of thinks us
up for no particular reason. A nice idea, in my opinion, if you must have a religion.

So, then, how do you choose? On what basis? Well, how about the strange, radical, recent idea of
looking at evidence? Bizarre, right?

Now, there are lots of people around right now who are trashing Darwinism, for one reason or
another... mostly religious. Let's look at the basic logic of the evolutionary thesis.

1) It has been established that the basis for cellular functioning and structures in both individual cells
and in organisms is their DNA.

That's the "master code", so to speak (of course there's other stuff, RNA, various cellular structures,
mitochondria... but DNA is the necessary basis.). When DNA is changed, the organism changes
(although there are some changes to DNA that are insignificant for the organism... but when there isa
permanent change, it's ultimately due to a change in DNA — I mean, car accidents will change our
bodies too, but clearly that's not the kind of change I'm talking about.). Ok... DNA is what maintains
and can change our body shapes and functions. Us and virtually all life on earth (there are some
viruses which might be minor exceptions — they rely on RNA). I don't think anyone except the most
fanatic (and ignorant) religious bigots will deny the above.

2) DNA is what passes those physical characteristics to offspring (I don't need to justify this also, do
I?).

3) DNA is a chemical, a big complex molecule, and like any chemical, it can be changed accidentally
through a variety of random factors, including radiation, chemicals, even physical force.

4) by 1), above, at least some of those changes will result in changes in the organism, at some level.
Just totally randomly; we're not talking anything profound here, just garbage getting into the system.

5) Meanwhile, we're living in a dangerous, rather chaotic world. All sorts of things going on outside:
we need food, there are accidents, animals and bacteria and whatever out to kill us, etc., etc.

6) So those garbage changes in 3) are probably going to screw something up and kill us.

7) But what if we get lucky, and one of them makes us stronger, faster, just a littlewarmer at night,
because our hair is longer; our beak is a little longer so we can get further into a seed pod, or
something like that, which, just by chance, helps? Well, we do a little better than anyone else who
wants that same seed (etc.), right? Or the opposite might happen: we get unluckyand do a little
worse. (What if some bigchange happens as a result of a littlechange in DNA? Like growing an extra
foot taller, or becoming severely retarded? The logic is the same.)

8) So if we have a little better chance at coping, we'll also have a little better chance at having
offspring, right? If we have less chance of coping, we'll have worse chance at having offspring, or
maybe we just move somewhere where the extra height (or whatever) actually helps.

9) And since it's the DNA which has changed, andwhich is what passes on those changes to
offspring, those latter will have, if they get that change passed to them, the same teeny (or whatever)
advantage.

10) Then we just go back to step 4, and repeat the process. Over and over (and over and over
and...). And maybe you think that it's difficult to get changes into DNA? No way, it's just the opposite,
there are mutations happening all the time; we've got very elaborate repair mechanisms that fix most
of them. But not all.

And there you are. The horror of Darwinism, in 10 easy steps.

Is there evidencethat the above has happened? Well, there are librariesfull of it; museumsfull of it;
laboratories busy observing evolution in bacteria, in flies... in thingies that grow and multiply fast, so
we can see it happening. How about much more detailed theory than the general outline above? Yes,
there's evidence, by the truckload. I'm not even going to begin to give you references, there are too
many. Just go on the web to pretty much anywhere studying evolution of any sort, and you'll get sick
of all the evidence. And the next time someone says that some piece of "crucial" evidence is
missing... just remember, first, that there will neverbe proofof anytheory in science. Newton's "laws"
of gravity are not proven,and indeed were shown to be approximations. Science deals (at base) in
inductionnot deduction... you never know for certain; certainty is for people who want religion.
Second, remember the logic above. Where's the flaw? You find it; I can't.

Steven Ravett Brown

The simple answer to the question is BOTH!! But then you might also want to believe contemporary
cosmologists, and cosmogonists. It is not a question of science seeking to destroy faith, or faith
seeking to assert its superiority over science. It is rather that both are legitimate visions of the world. It
is unfair to assume that all scientists are not without faith or that they seek to destroy it through
rational explanations of the origins of the world, witness, for example, the work of Teilhard de
Chardin. Genesis does not claim to be a scientific explanation of the origins but a religio-mythopoetic
explanation. For the authors of Genesis it was as real as the 'Big Bang' is for those who propose it.
But then so to were the myths of Babylon, Sumeria, Egypt, Greece and the East. Darwin sought to
offer a thesis for origins based on the phenomena he observed, but, as with the Genesis authors, he
was bound by the confines of his time, culture, language and available scientific knowledge. Darwin is
a theory, as is the 'Big Bang', it may be the most plausible theory, but one is not unreasonable in
accepting Darwin, the Big Bang, or Genesis. A faith position is as much a reasonable position as the
sceptically scientific, or the philosophically rational. Believe both, or believe neither — each position is
plausibly acceptable.

Fr Seamus Mulholland OFM

Generally Darwin and Genesis are considered as personifications of two contradictoryviews of the
Universe. Darwin symbolises an evolutionary and naturalistic view of the universe from which God is
(or at least can be) excluded. Genesis symbolises a world-view where everything is created by the
direct creative act of God, from which science is excluded, or at least is not necessary.

If Darwin is taken seriously then Genesis is ignored and God is squeezed out of existence. Some do
just that, the Oxford Zoologist Richard Dawkins, for example.

If Genesis is taken seriously, then Darwin and all his works are seen to be fundamentally flawed, and
a Creationist position is adopted, in which not only Evolution is rejected, but so are the findings of
Geology and Astronomy, and the age of earth is held to be a mere 10,000 years. Darwinists and
Creationists behave like cats and dogs and there seems no way out of this dilemma.

Why not try a smoother decision?Rather than to force a choice of EITHER Darwin OR Genesis, let's
try to say that Darwin and Genesis are a case of BOTH/AND, which means being complimentary
because they (try to) answer totally different questions.

Darwinism holds, that biological species evolve primarily by means of chance variation and natural
selection. This is at first sight contradictory to the Gen 1, 20-25. But only if read literally and assuming
that scientifically spoken, God created the different kinds of animals just as the mood took Him. But
didn't we apply double standards?

First: Genesis 1 and 2 concentrate in praise on Who did the Creation ("And God said" occurs nine
times as an introductory formula for God's creativity!) while Darwin concentrates empirically on Howit
was done.

Even if the Theory of Evolution has answered the puzzling questions of how life began, and also how
we arrived at this point in time, it must be noted that it does not explain the beginning of the universe.
It also does not explain: Why all that?

Second, I cannot see why the arguments in favour Evolution:

*The Evidence of the Fossil Record

*"Mutual Affinities"

*Geographical Distribution

should contradict the Bible, for the same reason. By the way, in Genesis God creates living beings
roughly one after another, which is in essence the idea of evolution.

Third: People having had a divine vision, are very unlikely to write their exceptional experience in
scientific "protocol statements", rather they will try to come up to their experience in a stylistic
appropriate way, and one is simply praise.

If expressions in sentences differ, then contents will as well. Therefore it's impossible to simply
translatesentences of the Bible in scientific sentences. Perhaps it's possible to transformthem.

Attempting to tie the Genesis in to scientific discovery fails for another reason, as the Bible was
"written" 3000 years before the rise of Geology.

As a conclusion I would suggest, taking Creation seriously as a mature Christian is an affirmation that
God is the Creator of all that is, with a realisation that the Bible gives no scientific explanation.
Science will enlarge our understanding of Creation, but not overthrow it.

Comment: You might be interested in reading books by Ken Wilber, who is one of the authors who
pleads for reintegration of science, religion and philosophy. Integral Philosophy holds that there are
three complimentary ways of knowledge each of them gaining knowledge using appropriate methods:

*empirical knowledge using scientific methods and instruments

*rational knowledge using logical instruments

*mystical knowledge using meditative techniques

Claims or Theories in each of these epistemological "modes" can be examined, confirmed or refuted
only by using the same method it was established.

Simone Klein

What or who you believe is entirely up to you. You have to ask yourself which idea/ notion/ theory has
for yourself the greatest appeal. You will, of course, have to consider the evidence available for each
case. After some deliberation you may come to the conclusion, like many thinkers, that there is not
much going for either concept and set out to seek a third option.

The problem with both these theories is that neither can be put to a scientific test. Karl Popper's view
is that a true science is one in which experiments can be derived which could refute the theory under
consideration. In a pseudo-science, no experiment which would finally refute a theory can be made.
For example, a theory regarding the relationship between heat and temperature can be tested in any
laboratory at any time and can, therefore, be classed as scientific. On the other hand, no experiment
on evolution or biblical creation can be carried out, these must then be classed as pseudo-science.
All that can be done, so far as evolution is concerned, is to study such subjects as paleontology and
geology and offer an interpretation.

Unfortunately the geological record is not very supportive of evolution; it never shows one species
changing into another. What it does reveal are progressive changes in some organisms to adapt to
changing environmental conditions, this is called 'adaptation' not evolution. If the organism has not
been able to adapt owing to environmental changes coming too rapidly, it has been overwhelmed and
become extinct, it does not escape environmental pressures by changing into something else.
Throughout the geological column we find extinction after extinction, never do we find one species
changing into another. Darwin himself was aware of this and perceived it as a problem in his theory:
where are the missing links, the intermediates, he asked himself. This may sound rather naive, but
the objective of a beetle is to become a good, well adapted, beetle, not to become a mouse.

Progress in genetics has not helped the evolution notion, the accidental progression claimed in
evolution is thought to be brought about by chance mutations in the genome. Unfortunately we find
that mutations are usually detrimental to the organism or lethal, and rather than 'selecting' the mutant
as the 'fittest' usually wipes it out. (The fittest, by the way, means the best reproducers not the
physically strongest, that is where Adolf Hitler got it wrong.) Also a complex organ like an eye is
controlled by several genes, to produce an eye accidentally several very fortuitous accidental events
in the genome would be necessary: this defies mathematical credulity, and compared to this you
would stand a much better chance of winning the lottery.

The evidence for the evolution of man is very tenuous and very unreliable. For over one hundred
years enormous efforts have been made to discover the missing links between man and the apes.
The results, however, are a small collection of unconvincing fossil bones. Science should try to fit the
theory to the facts, sadly, in the case of evolution the desperation to prove the theory has resulted in