Yes, you read the title for this post right. This is SMcK and not RJS, but this post is on evolution. Why? Because I just finished reading Evolution: The Remarkable History of a Scientific Theory (Modern Library Chronicles)
, and found the book’s story — and the theory of evolution’s history — fascinating.
Whether you dip into the Cuvier or Lamarck, or whether you focus on Darwin’s trip to the Galapagos Islands, or whether then you care to study the genetics of Mendel and those after him, or whether you want to examine the brilliance of both micro-study or macro-theories, like Watson and Crick’s DNA or Dawkins’ ability to put together Hamilton’s “selfish gene” theory, the story is a good one. And Larson, who teaches at both Georgia and Pepperdine, knows about Henry Morris and the young earth creationist theories.
But it leads me to questions for scientists and for those who are curious about scientific matters.
In your view, what are the most important “data” or “facts” that must be explained regardless of one’s theory of origins? What are the most important arguments for evolution of life’s forms? What just jumps up and convinces you?
And another big one for me: If you believe in evolution, or theistic evolution (TE), how do you explain the “image of God”? Not only “what is it?” but “How did God do that?” Was it just natural development of potential already planted into the evolutionary process or was it something added to the evolutionary process?
For instance, what impressed me was paleographic record — the deeper we get into the earth’s deposits, the simpler the life forms. Another fact: the age of the earth.
And this: If one posits an evolutionary theory for development of life on earth, one must believe also in the ongoing life and death cycle as well as an ongoing “survival of the fittest” — a kind of climbing over one another to survive. Which gets to the substance of how God created as well as what kind of world God wanted.