Attempting to reconcile two opposing views that affect everybody is a daunting task. It is essential to remember that people view things as they affect them.
For example: When a person is given to religion, creation is the answer. To a person given to science, proof is the answer. Somewhere in between lurks a thought that evolution and creation may not be opposing ideas after all.
Evolution is viewed as a godless theory, because it has no defined agenda or objective, whereas creation is part of a bigger field of religion that supplies the need for agenda and defined objective.
Evolution has no ulterior motive either. Evolution is the ability to adapt to changes, which begs the question: Why does change happen?
Change happens because things move. All things move. There is nothing in this planet or in the known universe, big or small, that doesn’t move. In this movement, evolution is a critical adjustment.
While evolution knows no religion, there is evolution in religion. Even religions evolve. Evolution is an ever encompassing force without which the known universe would not be what it is.
Yet, creation and religion are also ever encompassing forces, forces that guide the lives of great men and define the roles of great civilizations.
Charles Darwin came from a religious family and grew up a religious man. What’s stunning about Darwin is that he was not even a scientist. He was a naturalist. The word botanist was new in Darwin’s time. Darwin was part of a group of people who pioneered in classifying plants. And as Darwin would discover a blade of grass, he would refer to his bible and say, “Yes, this is a special creation of God.” He would give it a name according to the plant’s phylum, genera, etc. The next time he would discover another blade of grass, again he would refer to his bible, and again say, “Yes, this is a special creation of God.” But he would discover a blade of grass that didn’t appear to be a special creation of God. At this point Darwin’s reference to the bible gave way to his keen sense of observation. The new blade of grass appeared to Darwin to be a product of the first two—a hybrid, also a new word at that time.
Then came the turtles in Galapagos where the forces of evolutionary change are more pronounced compared to any other place in the world. The islands of Galapagos sit on top of two tectonic plates, the Pacific plate and the American plate, where they collide off the coast of Ecuador. Cold northern currents and warm southern currents in the Pacific ocean converge in this area, giving each island a geological characteristic uniquely different from those of the other nearby islands. Even though the turtles that inhabit each island come from one mother turtle, they change in appearance as they hop from island to island. The ones that stay adapt in response to the unique geological characteristic of that island.
From there evolution evolved from theory to fact. Even the idea of evolution is itself subject to evolution.
If we can find it in our hearts to interpret Genesis’ six days of creation to mean six days of Divine time, which translates in geological time to mean 4.5 billion years of evolutionary creation, we would have reconciled two views that were not opposed to begin with.
Evolutionary creation or creational evolution? Take your pick. They mean the same thing.
—BAL G. SABLAD,
Guadalupe, Makati City