Human Origins: Is Science Right?

One of the most popular types of websites these days are those that provide genealogy records. They help people in the search for their ancestral roots. We are not sure who we are. We search for identity. Where we come from? What are our human origins?

Religious view of human origins

Until about two centuries ago, the religious vision prevailed in Western culture. So people assumed that they were created in the image of God with an immortal soul. They were aware of their designated place, in the grand scheme of things, as somewhere between the angels and the animals. In short, this Christian worldview gave life its meaning, a sense of our human origins, and a perspective by which people might try to live.

However, today, in our secular times, we have lost the awareness of transcendence and the sense of the sacred. Some people even think that humans are descended from aliens who visited Earth. But even if it were true, this would not explain how aliens came to be.

Most people give pride of place to the scientific way of knowing. Consequently, the question, ‘Who made us, God or evolution?’ is strongly answered in favor of the latter. There is no place in Darwin’s theory for divine guidance or design.

“We are the only people who believe they are raised from the savages; everyone else believes they are descended from the gods.” (Marshall Sahlins)

Christian fundamentalists who advocate creationism are doing religion a disservice. They have a literal understanding of the Biblical account of the 7 days of creation. So you see this as a factual story. (An alternate view they don’t like is that the book of Genesis is a myth that conveys a useful psycho-spiritual message relevant to personal growth.) Consequently, ‘creationists’ make false scientific claims. Not surprisingly, they are easily mocked by anyone with any sense at all. As a result, it has become almost impossible for the design idea within our human origins to get any kind of fair hearing.

Evolution and our human origins

Today it seems that Darwinian evolution is the only possible explanation for the beginning and development of life. However, Houston Smith in his book ‘Beyond the postmodern mind‘ makes the case for further consideration of a ‘grand origins’ concept.

Fossils found in the earth’s crust show that there have been changes in the constitution of plants and animals, and with the help of radioactive and potassium-argon dating, these have been placed in a historical sequence.

In addition, the higher and more complex forms of life (such as humans) appeared later than the simpler ones. All species of life on earth can be traced back through their pedigrees to the simplest forms in which life first appeared.

Darwin proposed how all this happened by saying that it did so through natural selection of those fittest to survive by working on random mutations. Darwinism is popular in science because natural selection is purely mechanical and the mutations it works on do so only by accident. In other words, biology sees the origin and development of human life as an automatic process with no room for divine providence.

This is perhaps not surprising since all branches of science avoid realizing that natural phenomena are by design. This is because there can be no scientific instruments to observe purpose and meaning. What might be claimed is beyond the ability of science to judge empirically.

Criticism of Darwinian evolution

We need to ask questions about any fossil evidence of incremental change.

“Geology…does not reveal…finely graded organic changes and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection that can be raised against (my) theory.(Charles Darwin)

In addition, there is the issue of the lack of fossil evidence for intermediate forms between species.

“Evolution requires intermediate forms between species, and paleontology does not provide them.” (David Kitts professor of geology University of Oklahoma)

A third concern has to do with non-functionality of changes that only later result in new useful body parts. How can natural selection explain the appearance of complex organs? The ones that are made of many parts that only when working together after thousands of generations have any use to survive? In the short term, what good is half a jaw or half a wing? The brain module that governs language ability has no equivalent among nonhumans. It has suddenly appeared in humans in its current form.

Houston Smith points out that Darwin’s theory of evolution is quite weak but seems strong because there are no other contenders for understanding our origins.

Non-naturalistic views of human origins

I would suggest that if science has a restricted type of knowledge, then perhaps we should look at other ideas to find a sense of who we are and where we came from. The problem with a naturalistic perspective is that it assumes that nothing without some material component can exist.

This way of thinking prevents considering all kinds of less tangible phenomena, those that involve subjectivity and cannot be seen with any kind of precision, prediction, or control. To illustrate, we can sometimes gain intuitive insight, notice lucky coincidences, and remember dreams. Furthermore, we can be struck by awe and awe at the life force of nature. We can be willing to surrender to life’s growth and healing power.

Subjective truth may not prove anything, but it may offer reason to believe. Beliefs about who we are and where we come from. And as such it can guide our decisions and conduct.

Spiritual consciousness and our human origins

I would say that perceiving in non-naturalistic ways is a kind of spiritual awareness. According to the 18th century Swedish philosopher Emanuel Swedenborg, the spiritual flows into the natural. The divine is spiritual and strives to flow into the natural and enliven it. The divine energy is that of love that wishes to share its life in human action.

Swedenborg thought that learned people who study natural sciences are more likely to deny any divine reality because of their focus on natural forces. He also thought that for the rest of us any negative mood is associated with a materialistic and selfish attitude. What he wrote is opposed to a deeper understanding.

“The force or effort within the action or movement is, it is clear, something spiritual within something natural; for thought and will are spiritual activities, while action and movement are natural activities.” (Emanuel Swedenborg, spiritual philosopher)