This is the third article in the series "Understanding a Conservative Christian":
(3) Origins
(2) Introduction - Part II
(1) Introduction
(3) Origins
(2) Introduction - Part II
(1) Introduction
Origins
Where do we come from? Why are we here? These questions are among the deepest and most fundamental of the construction of our worldview. The question of origin is the foundation for the two main worldviews I discussed in the introduction. Let's contrast:
In the Biblical Worldview the earth, humans, animals and everything else are the creation of a all-powerful God (as described in the first few chapters of Genesis). Humans -specifically- are created in His image, given His breath of life, placed as ruler over the animals and created with explicit purpose: relationship with their Creator. This Biblical view of origin shapes the thinking of those like myself who hold to this worldview: life - particularly human life - has meaning (and is held sacred) since it was given with purpose by the Creator. Morality (right and wrong) is fixed and external to our perceptions and opinions of it.
The majority origin belief held by the Secular Humanist Worldview is that of abiogenesis coupled with Darwinian evolution. Abiogenesis is the spontaneous and random generation of life from inorganic material, Based loosely upon the theories of Charles Darwin (from which it takes its name) darwinian evolution outlines the subsequent transition of that single-celled life to the complex organisms we see today over the course of millions of years. Because life is the result of random chance it has no defined purpose other than the purpose individuals ascribe to their own lives. Morality is also relative - either to the individual or the culture.
Darwinian evolution (via abiogenesis) is the predominant origin theory of the day. Yet this evidence supporting it is not as solid as many would lead you to believe (for those willing to take a close look). Darwinian evolution is based upon a host of assumptions. A full expose on the case for/against Darwinian evolution is beyond the scope of this article, but here is a short list of a few of the more fantastic assumptions behind the 'evidence' for Darwinian evolution:
* Inorganic material gaining purposeful form and function - conveying information
* A uniform rate of radio-isotope decay across eons of time
* Accumulation of mutation to generate new unique abilities
* a uniform geological record unaffected by significant catastrophe
I am happy to discuss/debate the case for Darwinian evolution - and the scientific evidence pointing toward the Biblical creation account - just leave a comment or send me an e-mail. However, the point of the above list is to demonstrate the incredible amount of faith required to believe in Darwinian evolution. To buy into it, you have to believe all those assumptions to be true (or at least variations thereof). You're taking a lot of things for granted.
Now, don't get me wrong, Biblical creation requires assumptions as well: God as described in the Bible is real and acted as the Bible says He acted. Both origin hypotheses require a good measure of faith/belief - each is a critical part of it's associated belief system (worldview).
Our origin is important because it shapes our morality: The basis by which we determine which actions are appropriate and which are not - what is right, and what is wrong. Origin also defines our purpose - our reason for existence. These two (purpose and morality) go hand in hand and are closely related: Morality is the system by which our purpose is carried out.
As a believer in Biblical creation, I have a clearly defined purpose: to remain within my Creator's love and glory. My morality is likewise drawn from His instructions for my healthy existence. Just like an auto company makes an owner's manual for their car to explain its designed care and use so the Bible serves as God's owner's manual for me to explain my designed purpose and morality.
Things are far different for the secular humanist origin of darwinism. Since life results form random chance then purpose isn't clearly defined. Purpose is relative to the whim of the individual. Morality is also not fixed - it is also at the determination of the individual (though both tend to be heavily influenced by the surrounding culture). The darwinian origin hypothesis results in relativism (a lack of absolute truth - what's true for you may not be true for me).
Now, does this mean most darwinists are amoral? Not at all. Darwinists are free to construct their own morality - either as individuals or culturally as a group - and thankfully most choose a neutral or marginally altrustic morality (remember the Justice & Compassion Principle?). But there is a problem: Darwinists are also free to construct a selfish, or even harmful morality - and both are perfectly acceptable within secular humanism - the worldview provides no basis to reject these.
As an example, consider the Nazis of World War II era. Collectively as a culture they embraced a morality which permitted the murder of millions of innocent individuals. Few would agree with their callous disregard for human life, yet they were acting well within the (non-)limits allowed by darwinist/secular humanist morality.
Now, certainly many atrocities have been committed in the name of the Christian religion as well: certain acts during the crusades, the inquisition, etc. However, there is a fundamental difference. Those who committed atrocities in the name of the Christian religion did so in direct opposition to the moral standard they claimed to represent. Not so with darwinist-based atrocities (the eugenics movement, nazism) which were simply acting on a viable morality assembled from their worldview.
This series is titled "Understanding a Conservative Christian", so following that vein let me conclude with my personal convictions. I choose to embrace the Biblical worldview, and as part of that, I believe in a literal six-day creation event where the universe was spoken into existence by God six to ten thousand years ago. I don't believe this for scientific reasons (though significant known scientific evidence corroborates with this origin hypothesis), but because it is the most theologically sound explanation of the Biblical text. I am secure in my choice of origin - as it bestows upon me a fixed morality and purpose. I can act confidently within that morality and purpose knowing I am acting not only in my own best interest, but also in the best interest of others.
