'Loose Talk'
By Benjamin Benedict

A Nod to God

The two hundredth anniversary of Charles Darwin’s birthday has redoubled the shouts of ‘There is no God!’ although Darwin himself was far from that opinion. The theory of evolution is nevertheless perceived as a stick with which to beat the believers.

However, the stick beaters spend little time defining what exactly it is that they don’t believe in. I have recently heard a number of them talk of God as ‘him’, which indicates that they have in mind the literal, biblical version. I doubt if today you were to ask The Archbishop of Canterbury, Head of the Anglican Church if God was a ‘him’ you would receive an affirmative response. He might well say that ‘The Father, Son and Holy Ghost’ simply refers to God’s position as the originator, and is not a sexual definition. If it was, then who would the ‘Mother’ be? No, God is a monotheistic concept, and in most cases it is far more mystical than these detractors like to portray.  

This helps to underline a real difficulty with the negative argument. What is it exactly that they don’t believe in? Everyone has their own idea of God, even the non-believers. If they didn’t, how could they claim it as false? Their only way forward is to stick to the basic concept that few would argue with, namely a single, spiritual entity that created and at the same time in a physical sense, is everything that is.

No they say, ‘The Universe is the Universe. It is not God and God did not create it.’ But when you come right down to it, they have no more evidence to back this up than do the believers. What they do have is plenty of evidence to support the theory of evolution and thereby put Creationist cant to the sword.

Beyond that, there is trouble brewing for the doubters. Evolution as a concept is utilitarian. Plants and animals evolve to accommodate changing conditions, or to be more successful in procreation, or simply to become more efficient as food or nutrient gathers. The trouble is that what we see around us goes way beyond those confines.

The bird that blows its throat out in a swollen red, bag to attract a mate can also have pinstriped white dots down its black, back feathers. What are they there for? They aren’t camouflage, in fact the opposite, but its mate can’t see them either so they aren’t there to attract. They are just there and as far as I can see evolution theory just does not account for them and they can only be rationalised as a form of mutation, possibly brought on by radiation from a solar flare or some-such. But even then, why does such an intricate pattern result? Why is everything when it is left alone, so perfect in its way, when the things we make are anything but? If evolution was the mindlessly efficient mechanism that it is made out to be, then its products would much more closely resemble ours. They don’t and it isn’t.

From either side, it is a non-winnable argument. At the end of the day, you have to balance things up for yourself. If your own life seems at all mystical, then this might offer the key as to whether you believe in God or not.      

Mr. Benedict's Archives

Post Your

Comments