Words: 1463
They shared the same perspective but shortly before the Renaissance era, Christianity and science had slowly parted to its own way (Moses). The gap grew even wider after the 18th century when Charles Darwin introduced the theory of evolution. Since then, there were many debates amongst the supporter of the theory of evolution and the supporter of the idea of creation for over two centuries until now (Moses). The reason for the gap is believed to be that they both convey deferent kinds of perspective to explain the origins of life, where most Christian believed in the story of Genesis.
For example the verse “And God said, ‘Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky” (New International Version, Genesis 1. 0) implies that God created living creatures instantaneously. Having such gap did not mean that there was no in-between since there were also Christians like As Gray and B. B. Warfield, who believed in evolutionary theory and deny that evolution theory is the same as believing in no God, which is Atheism (“How have Christians Responded to Darning’s Origins of Species”).
Other Christians, however, used to believe strongly in the idea of creation, where God creates the universe as it is. In response to the idea of evolution, many Christians had offered many explanations that either rejects the idea of evolution, or tried to consolidate with the theory. The responses varies depending on when the responses were given: early 18005, mid sass, and modern responses (year sass). , and can be categorized to three types of responses: rejection (denying evolution), reconciliation (accept that evolution and Charlatanry can co-exalts), and integration (proposing a theological basis for evolution).
This report will focus on the responses given in the early and mid sass. 2. THE PRE. DARWINISM The first person that proposed the basic framework of creationism was James Usher, an Anglican archbishop from the 17th century (Dennis O’Neil). He was the first to propose the idea that the age of the earth was only 6000 years old. Since then, during his lifetime, he had numerous debates that focused only on whether or not his addition was correct or that he did not miss any descendent mentioned in the bible rather than whether his method is reliable or not (Dennis O’Neil).
These suggest that at that time, people believed strongly In Christianity and had little objection or not at all to scientific assertion that was derived from the bible. Ever since James Usher proposed the Idea, 17th and 18th century European biologist had to developed any further than the description of plants and animal. Later, one scientist named Carol’s Linnaeus created a system to structurally classify all living Nature (Dennis O’Neil). It discussed about how to name an organism using binomial system. He used that technique to name human as “Homo Sapiens”. The concept of genus and species was actually developed in the late sass’s by John Ray, an English naturalist and ordained minister” (Dennis O’Neil). The discovery could be said to have led to the early basic framework for evolution, which suggests that living organism ay share similar attributes if they are categorized in the same group. 3. Early Responses to Darwinism The idea of evolution was not invented from Charles Darwin. It was something that most scientists at that time refer with the term “development” (“How have Christians responded to Darning’s ‘Origin of Species’? “).
It was only after November 24, 1859 when Darwin published his book “The Origin of Species” which was targeted for the general audiences (Dennis O’Neill), the idea of evolution became popular. After Darwin published his book, the very first Christian’s response to Darning’s theory came room As Gray, who actually agreed with him instead of despising his idea. While Darwin worked on animals, As worked on American and Japanese plants. Grays research on American and Japanese plants suggested that the plants found in America and Japan came from the same ancestor, hence his strong defense of Darning’s theory. “How have Christians responded to Darning’s ‘Origin of Species’? “). In contrast with Grays view of evolution were several Christians like Enoch Fitch Burr, John William Dawson and Luther Tracy Townsend who rejected Darning’s theory. Enoch Fitch Burr was a also a scientist but he did not reject evolution with scientific explanation, but rather rejected it because the fear that evolution could lead to a life in which people will reject the idea of creation and will see life as a “survival of the fittest”.
On the other hand, John William Dawson believed that evolutionary theory is just a figment of Darning’s imagination and was not scientific because it was only a hypothesis and based on probability instead of fact. Similar to John William Dawson, Luther Tracy Townsend also assumed that evolutionary theory was a weak hypothesis because there were not many scientists at that time that can confirm his theory. The nonsense at that time was that many scientists were against evolution (Strengthener).
The last response to Darning’s theory can be seen from people like Joseph El Content, James Mucosa and Minot Judson Savage. Joseph El Content believed that evolution happen because of God. He was trying to suggest that evolutionary theory intersects with God even without any biblical reference. He defines evolutionary theory as a process that is continuously happening. Minot Judson Savage believed in the evolutionary theory as the American Pastor. However, he tried to reconcile evolutionary theory with creationist’s perspective.
Mucosa did not occupy his new post for a week before expressing to the upper classes of the College that he was fully in favor of evolution, provided that it was properly limited and explained Save for his views on human descent, Mucosa might be called a Darwinian. He attributed much to natural selection when others found it impossible. He could do so because it never occurred to him that natural selection should diminish the force of the argument from design. ” (Strengthener) From the excerpt above, one can tell that the way Mucosa reconcile with and the argument that support evolution.
These views than later developed to purport Christian’s responses to evolution in the next century. 4. Mid sass Response During the mid 1950, one of the strategies of the response of integration by the Christian can be seen from an essay titled “Chronology and Evolution” in the book “Christianity and Evolution” that was a compilation of essay compiled by Pierre Detailed De Chagrin. In the essay, the author argued “if a Christ is to be completely acceptable as an object of worship, he must be presented as the savior of the idea and reality of evolution”.
The author was trying to combine the theology of Chronology with evolution, essentially creating a “Christian evolution”. The author argued that the essence of Chronology: redemption, incarnation, and the message of gospel are clue or sign that may help to give evolution a Christian’s nature (Pierre, page 74). In the meantime in United States, Christian’s rejection toward evolution was seen apparent after the federal government financially supported the Biological Sciences Curriculum Study (BPCS).
Most of the vocal Christian’s group rejected the effort because they thought it was an attempt of evolution propaganda to children. Most of those Christians at that time were still in support of the “young earth” theory as the Asia of their rejection to evolution. Some other Christian like John Whitlock and Henry Morris, however, clarified the problem by using one of the stories that is written in Genesis, about Nosh’s arc and flood to prove that the earth is old.
Even so, the “young earth” movement continued to expand until the term “Creationist” became popular to explain Christian’s who support “young earth” theory (“How have Christians responded to Darning’s ‘Origin of Species’? “). The response of reconciliation, however, was not popular in the mid twenty- century. This is because of the growth of Creationism at that time as explained in the revises paragraph. However, the Catholic pope at that time published encyclical letter Humans generic that states that the Genesis cannot be translated literally (McCarthy).
This position taken by the Catholic churches further states that at least for the case of Catholicism, their reconciliation with the theory of evolution was through a figurative translation of the account of Genesis. (McCarthy) 5. Conclusion Christian’s response to evolution can be traced back to a root of almost two centuries ago when James Usher first proposed the idea that the earth was 6000 years old. The same idea was still strongly defenses by some groups of Christian’s minority that were against evolution.