Interesting Essay about Creationism by Dr. I. J. Singh
Evolution & Sikhi:
A Tribute to Charles Darwin
by I.J. SINGH
The following article is reproduced as a tribute to Charles Darwin and his seminal work on the theory of evolution, to mark the 200th anniversary of his birth this month. In this essay, first written in 2006, we present evolution and related matters from a Sikh perspective.
Did man descend from monkeys? From the point of view of the monkey, the idea might be a slippery slope downwards.
The theory of evolution posits a connection between apes and humans that humans might find demeaning to their sense of centrality in God's creation.
Therefore, both Charles Darwin the man and his theory of evolution have had a checkered history in the United States.
Historically, this country has assiduously sought separation of church and state. At the same time, conservative Christianity has tried to bend the law to define what is taught in American schools.
In 1860, Bishop Wilberforce led the first attack on Darwin's theory. In 1925 John Scopes, a teacher in Tennessee was convicted of teaching the "godless" theory of evolution. And now almost 80 years later, just as a legal challenge to the teaching of evolution came to a head in Dover, Pennsylvania, Pat Robertson, the well-known evangelist, warned the people of Dover that they faced divine wrath for siding with Darwin. One would think that even God would not be nursing his rage for so long.
These are not the only milestones in the war over evolution.
In 1968, the Supreme Court, headed by Justice Earl Warren, rejected an Arkansas law that prohibited the teaching of evolution in public schools. Arkansas then passed a new law requiring equal time for Creationism; it was struck down the next year.
In 1996, Pope John Paul II conceded that evolution was more than a theory and that there was no conflict between the teaching of evolution and Roman Catholic belief. But then, President George W. Bush weighed in for creationism, wrapped as "Intelligent Design."
These were mere skirmishes; the war still goes on.
Interestingly, Darwin is honoured by Britain with his picture on the ten-pound currency bill, while in America he is reviled. Less than half of all Americans believe in evolution, while the federal judge, appointed by the same President, ruled in the Dover case at the end of 2005, dismissing the suit by creationists with a chuckle and a scolding.
Darwin's idea of evolution via natural selection was not entirely original; others were thinking along similar lines. But his was the most painstakingly detailed and coherent schema with convincing evidence.
His wife, a zealous Christian, worried that he might be destined for hell.
Why and how did a scientific hypothesis run into such opposition from organized religion, particularly Christianity? To understand this, keep in mind the fate of Galileo, who was forced to recant in the face of Papal edicts of condemnation and ex-communication.
Much of the controversy between science and religion stems from too literal a reading of the Genesis chapter in the Old Testament. To insist that God completed his creative mission in six days, from Monday to Saturday, lessens the mystery of creation. To believe that God created man in his own image is to reduce God to an anthropomorphic being.
This is neither science nor religion.
To disbelieve the geologic evidence, which posits that earth is at least 4.5 billion years old makes little sense, when any evidence to the contrary does not exist. If one reads literal truth into what should be interpreted metaphorically, such conflict is inevitable.
The very literal reading of Genesis would force us to abandon all paleontological evidence and interpret all fossils as the remnants of the Great Flood and Noah's Ark.
To a world that seeks a very human-like God's hand in every act in our lives, ranging from winning the lottery to an unfortunate tsunami, it is inconceivable that chance and natural selection could be the keys to evolution.
It is difficult for us to relate to a God that has a universal presence within each of us, does not have a fixed address and abode, and does not micromanage our lives.
The unfortunate divide between science and religion is a sad reflection on the sorry state of public education in this country. Science provides no answer on why I am here but it strives mightily and unendingly to find order in nature, and to discover how natural processes work.
What is the purpose of life, why do I exist and what should I do about it, are the domains of religion and philosophy, not science.
The concerns of science and religion are not mutually exclusive, but are complementary. Religion can lend meaning to life, whatever the facts that science discovers about the mechanics of life itself.
There are many scientists like Stephen Jay Gould, a prolific writer on science and evolution, and Francis Collins, the head of the Human Genome Project, who take this approach.
But what do the theorists of Intelligent Design say? What exactly are their working hypotheses? It seems they depend not on evidence, but on perceived holes in the evolutionary model.
The primary argument hangs on one conviction. Look at even the smallest, least complicated animal, a single cell, or an organelle within it. Its organization is so complex, the internal structure of the basic cell or organelle so complicated that it could not have evolved from molecules or a random collection of smaller, simpler units. Just as even the smallest functioning machine cannot be assembled by randomly throwing together all the necessary parts, similarly the functioning cell requires that an intelligent guide or director control the process.
This argument takes strength for the believers when they look at an extremely complicated structure, such as the eye.
Some scientists take the middle ground, concede to an extent the guiding hand of God, and then posit that God does not further manage the course of life forms but leaves them to evolve according to their needs and circumstances at a given geographical location.
Darwin proposed natural selection as the method that gave advantage to certain variations that drove the process of evolution. It escapes me why the believers cannot accept that natural selection is the modus operandi of intelligent design.
I believe Darwin and his ideas are anathema to many for three reasons.
Firstly, Darwin did not endear himself to organized Christianity when he encountered slave-owning devout Christians who spouted scriptures to support their policies; his belief was severely shaken.
The second larger reason echoes the fate of Copernicus and Galileo. Like these two men before him, to the ordinary Christian, Darwin had removed mankind from its self-appointed central position in creation.
Thirdly, Darwin's theory was telling the people that invoking God was unnecessary to running mundane details of everyday life. Managing of the world was now mankind's own responsibility.
If we conceive of God as an anthropomorphic being, then it is inevitable that we would place mankind at the center of creation and that is what a literal reading of Genesis would do. It is difficult to reconcile this to our puny existence on a small, fragile planet in an immense universe that is one of many universes; perhaps just as many universes remain undiscovered.
Our sense of being the central focus of the universe is bound to suffer when we realize that there is 98 percent congruity between the human genome and that of the chimpanzee.
What we need to do is to accept this as
hukam, live in grace, and celebrate the two percent that makes us human. Look at the existence of a human and that of a chimp and this two percent assumes dramatic proportion and meaning. This two percent enhances us; it does not demean or lessen mankind.
And that is the central essence of Sikh teaching on this matter.
The Gurus speak of 8,400,000 species of life, but it is not a fixed number they have in mind.
This number comes from Indian culture and Hindu mythology. The cultural context of language has to be comprehended, not its literal usage. The number is used in the same sense, as I would say "a gazillion species" in English. It merely points to an inconceivably large number.
The Gurus are saying, "There is a huge unknown number of species..."
Guru Granth does not ask us to look for our ancestors in the rats, mice and {censored}roaches that are all around us. Although this thought is found in some religions, Sikhism does not interpret
karma in this manner.
Treat all creation with dignity and respect is what Sikhism would ask. At death we are returned to the Earth from which we all arise, to be incorporated in the universal biological cycle of which we are integral parts.
I know in our complicated existence it is easier and tempting to look for simple solutions. Guru Granth repeatedly speaks of God as an infinite presence, of unlimited power and possibilities.
A Sikh reading Guru Granth may be tempted to put God in the director's chair from where he manages even the most trivial happening in his universe. A simplistic interpretation of
gurbani might then lead us to see congruence with conservative Christianity's restrictive views on evolution.
I submit that "
vicchar" or reason and analytic thoughtfulness are integral and critical components of being or becoming a Sikh. We cannot embrace the teachings of Guru Granth and embark on the path of becoming a Sikh without our critical faculties.
Leave them not outside when you explore Guru Granth. When the Good Book asks us to walk in the shadow of the Lord, it enjoins us to recognize the infinite Ultimate Reality that is within each of us and of which we are all a part. Do not cast God in the role of an anthropomorphic father. It would create a conflict between reason and faith, between our head and heart, between science and religion, that does not really exist. A literal reading of gurbani would surely land us in trouble of our own making.
Guru Nanak spoke clearly of the void that preceded the creation of the universe. He asserted that no one knows the date, day and time when the universe was created, when it will end, or under what circumstances.
He also spoke of a multitude of universes, planets and stars. He rejected the idea of a giant - like Atlas in Greek mythology - or a bull - as in Hindu mythology - supporting the weight of the world.
Guru Nanak's words are amazingly modern and consonant with our scientific notions of creation. They suggest absolutely no conflict between science and religion.
Much as it would be pointless to demand that the theory of a flat Earth be included in school curricula, it would be foolish to bring Genesis into the classroom to teach science or evolution. Genesis is a compelling story with layered nuances and meanings that are best discussed as literature and abiding philosophy.
And that would by no means diminish the story or its inspiration.
Yes, there are gaps in the evidence for evolution that belong in a classroom and deserve airing, not by theologians but by scientists who are the best arbiters of the evidence. Science will continue to debate the mechanics of evolution, not the fact that it occurred or that it continues without abatement.
Man will continue to evolve, if ever so slowly and so slightly.
[Reproduced from:
The World According to Sikhi, by I.J. Singh. The Centennial Foundation, Canada, 2006]
February 16, 2009
sikhchic.com | The Art and Culture of the Diaspora | Article Detail