FACULTY OF ENGINEERING

DEPARTMENT OF AEROSPACE ENGINEERING

ASE 378 - AEROSPACE HUMANITIES

CREATION AND EVOLUTION

There is much to be said about the issue of creation and evolution. The following questions
must be asked and answered to look at these two phenomena effectively. However, here we
only summarise the answers to five essential questions:
(1) Is creation possible?
(2) What difference does creation make?
(3) Is evolution possible?
(4) What difference does evolution make?
(5) Does evolution contradict creation?

Is Creation Possible?
When Jewish and Christian theologians first talked to Greek philosophers, the Greeks thought
the biblical notion that God created the world ex nihilo (“out of nothing”) was absurd and
irrational because it violated a law of nature that ex nihilo nihil fit (“out of nothing nothing
comes”). The reply was (and is) that
1. It is indeed a law of nature, but the laws of nature cannot be expected to bind the transcendent
Creator of nature.
2. The reason for this is that all of nature and all powers in nature are finite, but God is infinite;
no finite power can produce the infinite change from nonbeing to being, but infinite power can.
3. The idea of God creating out of nothing is not irrational because it does not claim that
anything ever popped into
existence without an adequate cause. God did not pop into existence, and nature did have an
adequate cause: God.

What Difference Does the Doctrine of Creation Make?

The doctrine of creation affects our concept of God. If God is the Creator, he must be (1)
infinitely powerful; (2) immeasurably wise; (3) a great artist; and (4) totally generous, since
the all-sufficient, perfect Being couldn’t have created out of need.
It also makes a difference to our concept of nature. If God creates nature, it is (1) intelligible
(it is no accident that science arose in the theistic West, not the pantheistic East); (2) good (thus
Christianity has always condemned all forms of Manichaeism and Gnosticism as heresy); and
(3) real (the East often sees nature as an unreal illusion projected by unenlightened
consciousness). Finally, the doctrine of creation affects the concept of ourselves. If we owe our
very existence to God, then (1) we have no rights over against God. How could Hamlet have
rights over Shakespeare? (2) Our existence is meaningful if we are in a play, a divine design,
deliberately created rather than blindly evolved. (3) And if we owe God our very existence, we
owe him everything.

Is Evolution Possible?
If evolution were impossible, that impossibility would have to come either from the creature
or from the Creator. Scientists and philosophers do not all agree about whether evolution is
possible, or whether the nature of species makes evolution impossible or not. The jury is still
out, though many people on both sides feel absolutely and totally convinced.
There is no impossibility on the side of the Creator. If God wanted to arrange for species to
evolve from each other by natural means, he certainly could have created such a world.
So as far as either scientists or theologians know, evolution is possible. Whether it is actual,
whether it actually happened, is undecided. The theory is indeed in scientific trouble. Perhaps
it can be salvaged. That is for science to decide.

What Difference Does Evolution Make?

We must distinguish three meanings that evolution can have.
First, it can mean simply a theory about what happened—more complex species appeared on
earth—and when, as shown by the fossil record.
Second, it can mean a theory about how this happened: by “natural selection,” “the survival of
the fittest.”
Third, it can mean the absence of a divine design, as distinct from God, using natural selection.

This third sense is not scientific at all, but philosophical and theological. One can accept
evolution in sense 1 but not 2, or 1 and 2 but not 3. There is certainly a contradiction between
the Bible and evolution in sense

But evolution in sense 3 is not a scientific theory at all.

If we evolved simply by blind chance, not divine design, then our lives have no overarching
meaning, no preset divine plan, no script. The only meaning, purpose or values that exist are
the ones we invent for ourselves. These can never be right or wrong, justified or not justified
by a higher standard than our own desires, which created them. Thus there is no real reason to
prefer Christian ethics to Stalinist ethics, for instance, except one’s own desires themselves.
Desire becomes its own reason, its own justification. There is no logical contradiction between
the Bible’s claim that “in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth” (Gen 1:1 NIV)
and the claim that once the earth was here, species evolved by natural selection. Science is like
the study of the inner ecology of a fishbowl; the Bible is like a letter from the person who set
up the fishbowl. Far from being logically exclusive, the two ideas of creation and evolution
easily include each other or suggest each other. On the one hand, the Bible does not say that
God “created” (bara4’) each species by a separate act, but that he said, “Let the earth bring
forth living creatures” (Gen 1:24). On the other hand, a theory of evolution that confines itself
to empirical science does not claim to know whether or not there is a divine Designer behind
these natural forces. But surely such an elegant and ordered design strongly suggests a cosmic
Designer.
There is also no logical contradiction between the Bible’s claim that the human soul (the
“image of God”) is “breathed” (“spirited”) into us from God, and evolution’s claim that our
body evolved from lower forms. Genesis 2:7 even suggests just such a double origin.

Does Evolution Contradict Creation?

God created the universe at the beginning of time; the universe could not possibly have evolved,
because there was nothing for it to have evolved from, and not even any time for it to have
evolved in. But what about life evolving? God may have created organic life directly or he may
have developed it from inorganic life by natural processes; nothing we know for sure in
either theology or science, God or nature, makes us absolutely certain of either answer.

Now the human body is one form of organic life. If organic life-forms evolved by natural
selection, the human body may have done so too. Or God may have created it directly. Certainly
a God who creates a whole universe from nothing can perform miracles within that universe,
including creating that comparatively little thing called a human body, if that is what he wished
to do. Nothing we know about either nature or God seems to make it impossible for our bodies
either to have evolved or to have been created directly.
The soul, however, cannot evolve. Spirit cannot evolve from matter; it would be easier to get
blood from a stone. No matter how many atoms you line up, or how complicated their lineup,
you cannot get a wholly different thing—thought, consciousness, reason, self-awareness—
from mere bits of matter. Awareness of the material universe is not one more part of that
universe. The knowledge of a thing is not one of the thing’s parts. It is transcendent to the thing,
an addition from without.

DARWINIAN VIEW OF THE ORIGIN OF HUMAN HISTORY

We must begin our discussion with the Darwinian view of the origin of human history because
this idea currently forms the foundation of the subject. Although the idea of the evolutionary
growth of life was speculated first by Greek philosophers and later by the philosophical group
called Ikhwan al-Safa and by individual philosophers such as Abu Bakr al-Razi, the Darwinian
view of evolution dramatically changed the view of man and his place in history. Darwin wrote:
"The early forebears of man were ... probably furnished with great canine teeth, but as they
gradually acquired the habit of using stones, clubs, or other weapons for fighting with their
enemies or their rivals, they would use their jaws and teeth less and less. In this case, the jaws
together with the teeth would become reduced in size". Quoting this statement from Darwin's
The Descent of Man (1871), one anthropologist argues:

Darwin argued that this weapon-wielding, bipedal creature developed a more intense social
interaction, which demanded more intellect. And the more intelligent our ancestors became,
the greater was their technological and social sophistication, which in turn demanded an ever-
larger intellect. And so on, as the evolution of each feature fed on the others. This hypothesis
of linked evolution was an obvious scenario of human origins, and it became central to the
development of the science of anthropology.

Darwin's views have influenced not only the science of anthropology but also the science of
history. As E. H. Carr has pointed out, "... Darwin made another scientific revolution; and
social scientists, taking their cue from biology, began to think of society as an organism. ...
Evolution in science confirmed and complemented progress in history". But this science failed
to comfort the historian on the origin of man. Darwin's view that human being is continuous
with the animal kingdom had a severe implications for his society in late nineteenth-century
Europe. As one observer says: "Darwin deprived people of the privilege of being God's special
creation, thereby contributing to the feeling of anxiety that characterises the twentieth century".
This observation has been made in the context of the Christian religious tradition of Europe,
which advocated human beings as a special creation of God, and God had a specific purpose
behind this creation. But the Darwinian belief shook the intellectual foundation of European
society in the nineteenth century. However, the question now is whether it will be scientific for
a historian or a social scientist to subscribe to such ideas as pre-Darwinian European beliefs.
Or is there any effect of the pre-Darwinian or post-Darwinian beliefs on the historian or the
social scientist? Let us examine both beliefs in the present context.

Although Darwin believed that "there exists a Creator and Ruler of the universe", he claimed
that: There is no evidence that man was aboriginally endowed with the ennobling belief in the
existence of an Omnipotent God. On the contrary, there is ample evidence, derived not from
hasty travellers but from men who have long resided with savages, that numerous races have
existed, and still exist, who have no idea of one or more gods, and who have no words in their
languages to express such an idea.
Darwin further argued: The tendency in savages to imagine that spiritual or living essences
animate natural objects and agencies is perhaps illustrated by a little fact which I noticed: my
dog, a full-grown and very sensible animal, was lying on the lawn during a hot and still day;
but at a little distance a slight breeze occasionally moved an open parasol, which the dog would
have wholly disregarded, had anyone stood near it. As it was, every time the parasol slightly
moved, the dog growled fiercely and barked. He must have reasoned to himself rapidly and
unconsciously that movement without any apparent cause indicated the presence of some
stranger living agent and that no stranger had a right to be on his territory. The belief in spiritual
agencies would easily pass into the belief in the existence of one or more gods. For savages
would naturally attribute to spirits the same passions, the same love of vengeance or the most
straightforward form of justice, and the same affections they feel.

Does Darwin have the first man of the Bible in mind while discussing the savages? Who are
these savages that he refers to? Animals like Darwin's "full-grown and very sensible" dog?
Uncivilised naked man in the jungle? Or colonised people in Asia and Africa? All these
possibilities exist for a Victorian gentleman such as Charles Darwin. We shall examine this
later. At this point, it must be noted that Darwin's views shook the foundation of European
religious beliefs. Many others adopted Darwinian views, and they "argued that man does not
only continue with the animal kingdom and subject to the laws of nature; they also asserted
that his mental, moral, and spiritual qualities evolved by precisely the same process that gave
the eagle its claws and the tapeworm its hooks". It is precisely due to such a positivistic view
about human beings' growth of mental, moral, and spiritual qualities that Darwinism emerged
as a rival to established religions. Following the Darwinian tradition, when the contributions
of Hebrew prophets are discussed in history books, they are introduced as if the prophets
emerged in history automatically. The insinuation seems to be that Abraham or Moses invented
God and worshipped Him. The prophets themselves claimed that they were chosen by God, the
Creator of the universe. Our concern in this essay is to examine the role of such a positivistic
method in history writing. This approach to history writing (including all social sciences) has
been called scientific, and its method is labelled as rational. Is the other method, i.e. pre-
Darwinian, or the religious method, unscientific and irrational? This issue deserves more
discussion. Darwin was not the first European philosopher/ scientist to deal with the subject of
the first man. Before him, Enlightenment philosopher Georg W. F. Hegel (1770-1831) worked
extensively on the subject. Francis Fukuyama has presented the modern European approach to
history by summarising the contribution of Hegel. According to Fukuyama
... freedom and nature are diametrically opposed. Freedom does not mean the freedom to live
in nature or according to nature; rather, freedom begins only where nature ends. Human
freedom emerges only when a man can transcend his natural, animal existence and create a
new self for himself. The emblematic starting point for this process of self-creation is the
struggle to the death for pure prestige.

Then Fukuyama argues by raising a few questions:

Is it not possible that the struggle for recognition reflects a longing for self-transcendence that
lies at the root not only of the violence of the state of nature and of slavery but also of the noble
passions of patriotism, courage, generosity, and public-spiritedness? Is recognition not
somehow related to the entire moral side of man's nature, the part of man that finds
satisfaction in the sacrifice of the narrow concerns of the body for an objective or a principle
that lies beyond the body? ... Hegel ... understands man as a moral agent whose specific dignity
is related to his inner freedom from physical or natural determination. It is this moral
dimension, and the struggle to have it recognized, that is the motor driving the dialectical
process of history.

Fukuyama refers to Immanuel Kant's (1724-1824) famous question of whether or not it was
possible to write a Universal History,13 and suggests that Hegel responded to this question of
Kant. Fukuyama says:

For Hegel, the primary motor of human history is not modern natural science or the ever-
expanding horizon of desire that powers it, but rather a totally non-economic drive, the struggle
for recognition. Hegel's Universal History ... gives us a broader understanding of man? “man
as man”? that allows us to understand the discontinuities, the wars and sudden eruptions of
irrationality out of the calm of economic development that have characterized actual human
history.

Our interest in this essay, however, is only the beginning of human history, not historical
progression. Therefore, we shall confine our discussion to the beginning of human history. It
is interesting to note that although Kant himself was not sure how to establish contact with
transcendence, Fukuyama's interpretation of Hegel seems to establish this connection without
much difficulty. However, one must note that Kant himself ventured into a sketch of the
beginning of human history on the basis of the Old Testament. He called this venture the
"conjectural beginning of human history". Kant's rational mind justified this conjecture by
saying: "What may not legitimately be ventured with regard to the progression of the human
actions may be attempted with regard to their first beginning". He continues his argument by
saying:

... conjectures cannot announce themselves as serious business, but at best only as a permissible
exercise of the imagination guided by reason, ... they are no match for a history which reports
the same events as an actually recorded occurrence, and which is accepted as such a report; for
the latter is examined by standards quite different from those of mere philosophy of nature. But
precisely because of this difference, and because I here venture on a mere pleasure trip, I may
hope to be favoured with the permission to use, as a map for my trip? undertaken on the wings
of the imagination, albeit not without a clue rationally derived from experience? may take the
very route sketched out in that document.

After making his "pleasure trip" based on the map sketched in the Old Testament, Kant goes
on to point out certain aspects of human nature in order to understand the progression of human
history. However, we shall propose to undertake this study on the basis of the Qur'an, because
the Qur'an claims to be the last along the line of recognized scriptures. We also propose to
understand the Qur'anic view of man in an effort to potentially examine whether such a view
of man helps us understand human history better. We may also rationally examine whether the
Qura'anic view of man or the Darwinian view of man is more useful in the study of history.

CREATION BELIEFS

In the last 5000 years, modern religions, (such as Hinduism, Judaism, Christianity and Islam)
have created their own explanations of where we, as the human species have come from.
Human cultures over time have offered many explanations to answer questions of existence:
“In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. After creating the earth, the sky, all
vegetation, the sun, moon and stars, and the seas, God made the birds and the fish on the fifth
day. On the sixth day, animals and human beings were created. So, God created man in his
image, in the image of God he created them, male and female he created them.” (From the
creation account in Genesis 1:1. There are two accounts of creation in the Bible, the other starts
in Genesis 2: 4b.)
“But, after all, who knows, and who can say? Whence it all came, and how did creation happen?
Whence all creation has its origin, He, whether he fashioned it or did not, who surveys it all
from highest heaven, He knows, or maybe even he does not know.” (from the Hindu text Rig
Veda, one of the oldest religious texts in existence, dating back to c1800 BCE.)

VARIOUS NARRATIVES OF CREATION

The origin of man has been the subject of speculation since ancient times and led
to various myths in different people, who believed that the first humans were created by gods
from stones, animals, etc. The ancient Greek thinkers had different views on the origin of
man: some believed that man is eternal, second others thought that he was born from
marine sediments. With the spread of monotheistic religions, people accepted the idea
that man was created and inspired by God.

The Steady State

The “Steady State” theory is a rival theory to the “Big Bang” theory. The “Steady State” theory
claims that the universe has no origin but is expanding as new matter is being created
continuously throughout the universe. It was first proposed by Alexander Friedman, a Russian
mathematician, in 1922 and developed in 1927 by Georges-Henri Lemaitre. He was a Belgian
physicist who was also a Catholic priest. Scientists such as Edwin Hubble have made detailed
observations and measurements that support and develop this theory.

Around 14 billion years ago, all matter and energy in the universe were at a point of infinite
density and temperature. It then expanded rapidly, and eventually, stars, galaxies and planets
formed. This expansion was the beginning of time and continues to this day. The Big Bang
theory is supported by evidence that space is expanding, including the redshift of light from
distant galaxies and the existence of cosmic background radiation in all directions.

The Earth formed around 4.6 billion years ago from dust and gas left after the Sun formed. As
the Earth gradually cooled, creating conditions in which life was possible, living things
appeared on the new planet Earth.

Hinduism
The creation belief central to Hinduism is the idea that Brahman (the Ultimate Divine Reality)
has three functions symbolised by the trinity of Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva. They together are
known as the Trimurti. Brahma is the creator, the source of all creation. Vishnu is the preserver
responsible for sustaining the Earth. Shiva is the destroyer, who brings change by universal
destruction. With its cyclical understanding of time, Hinduism teaches that the material world
is impermanent and is created not once, but repeatedly created, preserved and destroyed
through the agency of the Trimurti.
Judaism
Jewish understandings of creation are based on the Genesis account and reflect different views
of that account. Is it a parable or must it be interpreted literally? The one belief central to
Judaism is that Elohim (God) created the world and that human beings are Elohim’s special
creation. How and when creation occurred, on the other hand, is the subject of a fascinating
range of explanations. For example, the Jewish calendar is dated from the supposed date of
creation, 3761 BCE, calculated from a literal reading of the Bible. Significant numbers of Jews
believe that the Genesis account is literally true and that the world was created in 6 days. In
this view the world is 5,767 years old (in 2006). On the other hand, Rabbi Isaac of Acco, a 13th
century Kabbalist, calculated that the universe is 15,340,500,000 years old, based on in parlm.
Psalm 90:4 “A thousand years in your sight are but as yesterday”.

amaZulu
Unkulunkulu, Ancient One, is the creator of all that there is. Unkulunkulu was created
in Uhlanga, a huge swamp of reeds. Unkulunkulu is also Umvelinqangi (He who was in the
very beginning), god of thunder and earthquakes. Unkulunkulu came from the reeds and from
them he brought forth the people and the cattle. He created everything that is: mountains,
streams, snakes and cattle. He taught amaZulu how to hunt, how to make fire, and how to grow
food.

Khalakhali San
People did not always live on the surface of the Earth. At one time people and animals lived
underneath the Earth with Kaang, the Great Master and Lord of All life. In this place people
and animals lived together peacefully. They understood each other. No one ever wanted for
anything and it was always light even though there was not any sun. During this time of
bliss Kaang began to plan the wonders he would put in the world above.

Christianity
Like Jews, Christians base their understandings of the creation on the Genesis account. A
fundamental belief is that God created the universe out of nothing, reflected in the classic
doctrine of creatio ex nihilo. Some Christians read the Genesis account very literally. For
example, the influential Archbishop James Ussher (1581-1656) used the genealogies in the
book of Genesis to calculate the exact moment of creation. According to him God began the
work of creation at precisely 9 am on October 26, 4004 BCE. Today more Christians, who hold
to a literal reading of Genesis, that God created the world in six days, are called Creationists.
As early as the 4th century, St. Augustine, one of the most influential theologians in Christian
history, suggested that the six-day structure of creation in Genesis presents a logical framework
rather that the exact passage of time. He maintained that interpreting the creation story is
difficult and that Christians should be willing to change their minds if new information were
to emerge.
Many Christians stand in this tradition and are able to accommodate new scientific discoveries
in their thinking. For them the Bible is there to explain who the creator is and why God created
the world, not a scientific explanation of how the world was created. Many of the major
Christians denominations would hold this view. In 1996 Pope John Paul II wrote that “new
findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than a hypothesis” but that “if the
origin of the human body comes through living matter which existed previously, the spiritual
soul is created directly by God”.
Batswana
Traditional Batswana belief is centred on Modimo wa Leokaoka (the Lofty/ Supreme/ Most
High One), who is regarded as the creator of all, the cause and source of life. Modimo controls
human destiny and may manifest self (not himself/ herself-as Modimo is not a person who can
be referred to in gender terms) to express care or scorn, pleasure or displeasure, contentment
or discontentment with whoever conforms with/goes against tradition or the proper order of
things.
Below Modimo are Badimo, ancestral spirits who are venerated, worshipped and invoked
through sacrifices, prayers and appropriate behaviour. They intervene on Modimo’s behalf in
human affairs, giving or withdrawing support, protecting or condemning, or rewarding or
punishing.
Below Badimo are the spirits of royal ancestors, followed by living royalty, village elders, and
then parents, in that order of reverence.

Islam
While Islam shares the Genesis tradition with Judaism and Christianity, the creation accounts
in the Qur’an are less specific than, and differ in some details from, Genesis 1. Islam is
unequivocal that all creation originates from the will, intention and doing of Allah, the
Almighty. The Holy Qur’an further states that the Almighty created the heavens and Earth in
six days. Verily your Lord Allah has created the heavens and the earth in six days. (The Heights
verse 54)
There are differing views in Islam as to how and in what order the creation happened. The
Qur’an is also quite clear that the human race originated From Adam (peace be upon him). Oh,
mankind, fear your Lord who created you from a single soul (Adam). (Ch Women verse 1)
Whilst some Muslims might see in the Qur’an support for the big bang theory in which it reads.
The heavens and the earth were joined as one unit before We clove them asunder. (Ch 21 verse
30) In this verse, the Almighty Allah is responsible for this phenomenon.

Yoruba People
Besides the myths presented above, the Yoruba tradition has its own account of the creation of
the universe. The myth has it that there was a supreme being called “Olodumare” who had a
son “Oduduwa” and a host of minor gods. Olodumare gave “Orisa-nla” (one of the minor gods)
loose earth wrapped in a leaf of a snail shell, two pigeon birds and a five-toed hen to be used
as tools for the creation of the universe. Oris-nla cast the loose earth on the universe. Orisa-nla
cast the loose earth on the watery waste and let lose the birds to scatter and spread the loose
earth. The portion that was covered by the loose earth became land and the remaining portion
remained water. Olodumare ordered Oris-nla to equip the earth and to be assisted by Orunmila,
the oracle divinity. Olodumara gave Orisa-nla palm tree to be planted to give food and shelter
and silk rubber tree and white-wood tree full of sap to give drink. Finally, Olodumara
commanded Orisa-nla to make the physical feature of man. Orisa-nla made different types of
men on earth, and then Olodumare breathed the breath of life on man to give him life.
One might want to question why the sap from the silk rubber tree and white-wood tree had to
be given for drink when there was plenty of water in the sea. But, as in every myth, there is
hardly a strong logical consistency, including the scientific theories of the origin of the universe
to which we now turn.