This post kicks off the series Evidence for Creation, which aims to show that the creation of the universe, the earth and man, as described in Genesis 1 and 2, has not been refuted by contemporary science.
In the third and fourth centuries, the patristic theologians Origen of Alexandria, Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nyssa, Ambrose and Augustine published several works on the Jewish idea of creation of the world by God. These texts were not only accepted, but established a new paradigm, a novel pattern of thought that went through the Middle Ages and Modernity, until the time of Charles Darwin.
Contrary to popular belief, Darwin did not demolish the patristic paradigm of creation, to establish the theory of evolution. On the contrary, in the classic The Origin of Species, he adopted this paradigm as a starting point for the presentation of his revolutionary theory. Here are two passages in which Darwin made this clear:
"I believe that animals have descended from at most four or five progenitors, and plants, from a number equal to or lower" (The Origin of Species. In Great Books of the Western world. Vol 49. Chicago: Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1993. p. 240-241).
In this passage, Darwin made all forms of life recede to less than ten prototypes or basic groups. The General Theory of Evolution that he created works from these groups, but few people realize how he explained their origin. In Darwin's own words:
"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been blown by the Creator into a few forms or into one. From so simple a beginning, as the planet continued to spin according to the fixed law of gravity, endless forms of beauty and wonder insurmountable evolved and continue to evolve to this day "(idem. p. 243).
Succinctly but clearly, The Origin of Species presents the evolution from five to ten prototypical groups of living beings created by God. This shows that Darwin did not reject the paradigm of creation, but adopted it as starting point of his theory. However, half a century after his death, the paradigm of creation was devastated, destroyed. Not destroyed in the religious sphere, in which it is accepted until today, but within the realm of that knowledge which is considered the most accurate about reality.
Who was responsible for this great transformation? What reasons can be evoked to justify or warrant it? The first question is not difficult to answer: the demolition of the patristic paradigm of creation was carried out by scientists who have treated of Evolution after Darwin. Of course, other thinkers like Nietzsche, Feuerbach, Marx and Freud emulated scientists in carrying out their task, which is why they came to be considered fathers of materialistic philosophies. However, the removal of creationist paradigms was not their work, but of the scientists who remade Darwin’s Theory of Evolution under the new name Synthetic Theory.
The second question above reappears, at this very point: what motives led the authors of the Synthetic Theory to reject the paradigm of creation? The main reason was the discovery of several mechanisms that explain precisely how certain pieces of ADN called genes are transformed and engender new species. Many of these mechanisms were given complicated names, such as replication errors, chemical and physical changes of ADN, adaptive and maladaptive changes in phenotype and increased mutation rate. Through them, the Special Theory of Evolution (on the emergence of new species) has been widely confirmed, but the General Theory (about the origin of major groups) was not. So much so that it had to be replaced by the Synthetic Theory.
The error that resulted in the elimination of the paradigm of creation occurred exactly in this transition from the General Theory of Evolution, developed by Darwin himself, to the Synthetic Theory of neo-Darwinists. Several issues contributed to the misunderstanding. The most important were: a) that the paradigm of creation was developed in theological language, and the Synthetic Theory in biological speech, b) the suspension of the exegesis of Genesis 1 and 2 at about the same stage where the patristic writers left it. I will address these issues in subsequent posts of the series Evidence for Creation.
