© 2005 Dick Bain
© 2005 The Brotherhood of Man Library
Evolution has been a bone of contention between science and religion ever since Darwin published his famous Origin of The Species in 1859. Darwin must have had some inkling of the storm he was about to unleash on the world since he delayed publishing for a number of years.
And what a storm it has been! Sometimes the debate has become very heated, with the anti-evolutionists portraying the evolutionists as Godless humanists and the evolutionists portraying the anti-evolutionists as ignorant religious fanatics. Biology teachers have had an especially difficult time since they teach the children of both groups, so they are right in the line of fire.
The famous 1925 so-called “Scopes Monkey Trial” of John Scopes, a biology teacher, highlighted this issue. Even though the trial was pre-arranged just to challenge the Tennessee law against teaching evolution, the intensity of the debate between attorneys Clarence Darrow and William Jennings Bryan during the trial illustrates the tension between the two sides of this issue.
Since the authors of the papers comprising The Urantia Book portray both life and the universe as evolutionary, but not accidental, how will the various segments of our culture receive this book?
It seems to me that the evolutionary scheme of the Urantia Papers lies half way between the radical positions of strict evolutionist and radical anti-evolutionist. The strict evolutionist says that the origin of life is purely accidental and that the evolution of life is obviously a matter of natural selection. Natural selection, as defined by Darwin, says that new species occur because of the accumulation of small changes within a given species. The strict evolutionist says that appeal to a supernatural source is so much hubris. On the other hand, the anti-evolutionist usually objects to evolution on religious grounds. Their ideas are based on a literal interpretation of the Bible, in particular the well-known six days of creation portrayed in Genesis. The positions of these two groups are pretty well entrenched; neither one is liable to convince the other of the correctness of their position.
The creationists are immovable because they base their beliefs on the Bible, and for them the Bible is the “Word of God.” Their attitude seems to be that if any part of the Bible was called into question, then it would cast doubt on the truth of the entire Bible. Therefore, so-called Creationist scientists look for evidence that will invalidate the theory of evolution and thereby prevent this theory from undermining people’s belief in the Bible as the inspired Word of God. They are especially interested in getting school boards to replace the teaching of evolution with the teaching of creation science, or at least having creation science taught along with evolution as an alternative theory.
To further their agenda, they have endeavored to get those who believe the creationist doctrine elected to school boards so they could get biology books featuring creation science into the schools. They have had a few temporary victories in a few states (most recently Kansas,) but have not prevailed for long in most cases. In comparison, the strict evolutionist need not have such an agenda, since most high school biology texts already feature the story of evolution.
The evolutionist looks at the scientific evidence and sees what appears to be a series of evolutionary steps leading finally to us–Homo Sapiens. The evolutionist believes that life existed at least as long ago as 3 ½ billion years because evidence for bacteria has been found in rocks in Australia that scientists dated to that age. Furthermore, many hardcore evolutionists believe that the origin of life is strictly accidental. They contend that given a few billion years of heat, lightning and cosmic radiation, existing hydrocarbon molecules will conglomerate in ever more complex associations until at last life will appear. Astronomers have found that the hydrocarbons needed to form life are found throughout the universe. No Creator is needed. Is a compromise possible between the extremes of hardcore creationism and hardcore evolutionism?
There is a group of conservative Christians who promote an idea called “Intelligent Design.” They present this as a compromise position, but is it? The “Intelligent Design” folks contend that evolution may operate on a limited basis within a species, but that new species do not appear as a result of the accumulation of small changes as Darwin’s concept of natural selection theorizes. Many of these folks also accept that the earth is older than the 6000-year-old world promoted by the Creationists, but they do not accept a million-year existence for humans. These folks, like the creationists, are trying to get their ideas taught along side of or as an alternative to evolution. Because their position is less extreme than the creationists, they may have more success. But they are certainly don’t occupy the middle ground between the creationists and the evolutionists. The strict evolutionists say that the “Intelligent Design” people are just Creationists in moderate’s clothing. But there is indeed a middle ground in our culture between the two extremes, though it hasn’t been given a name.
Many liberal Christians and others feel that while the evidence does favor the evolution of species, nevertheless God must somehow be involved in the equation. They see God as the ultimate source of everything and as the creative mind behind this universe of things and beings. The crucial point is that many of them are open about the method God used to bring about his vision–evolution could be God’s chosen mechanism. Some scientists who are also spiritual persons seem to subscribe to this concept. These liberal religionists and open-minded scientists are the sorts of people who might be open to the evolutionary concepts in the Urantia Papers. Unfortunately, these middle-path people may not be a very large group.
In a recent issue of National Geographic [1], the author cites surveys showing that 44% of people polled believe that humanity and the earth are less than 10,000 years old. But the article goes on to say that probably many of these people are not Christian Evangelicals. Rather, the author faults the low level of scientific education within the U.S. for some of these incorrect beliefs. But at least those who lack an understanding of science may be educable and more open to new ideas than those whose minds are bound by a rigid system of beliefs. We might think that The Urantia Book would be an ideal textbook to educate the uninformed about evolution as God’s chosen life building mechanism, but there are several problems with this idea.
While it contains some science information, the The Urantia Book is not a scientific text. It appears to me that its real purpose is to up-step our God concepts and present a more detailed and accurate picture of the life and teachings of Jesus than that presented in the Bible. The science in the The Urantia Book is a supporting actor rather than its star. And further, as many of us have discovered, there are some problems with the science in the The Urantia Book, and this may include its presentation of evolution. While the line of ascent from single cells to human beings presented in the book generally agrees with current theories, the times for certain events do not seem to agree with those determined by researchers. The authors tell us that the Life Carriers implanted single celled life here about 550 million years ago, yet scientists have found evidence for bacterial life (prokaryotes) at least 3 ½ billion years ago.
If we suppose that the authors are telling us that the single celled life they implanted was like our cells, with a DNA containing nucleus, the 550 million year figure is still somewhat questionable. According to researchers, cells with a nucleus containing DNA (eukaryotes) appeared much later than bacteria–about 1 1/2 billion years ago according to some researchers. But if the life carriers implanted eukaryotes 550 million years ago, what was the source for the prokaryotes (bacteria) that already existed? Did they arise accidentally? Do the Life Carriers not consider bacteria to be a life form or are bacteria not life as they define it? Or is it possible that the Life Carriers implanted bacteria but gave us a figure that was more in line with the science of the 1930’s? In any case, the 550 million year figure may be a problem. [2]
Yet another problem with the scheme of the evolution of life in the The Urantia Book is that of sudden evolutionary steps. Classical Darwinian evolution specifies that changes happen gradually over long periods of time, whereas the authors of The Urantia Book state that new species appear suddenly. UB 58:6.3 [3] However, there is a division within the ranks of scientists. A few prominent ones such as the late Stephen Jay Gould, a well-known paleontologist, have put forward a theory called punctuated evolution. They theorize that evolution of a new species does occur rapidly over a very short period of time. Considering this division, the sudden evolutionary steps affirmed in the book may not be so controversial with scientists.
Then there is the problem of life’s ultimate source. While Christians may applaud the idea of God as the ultimate source of life, how will they respond to the idea of life implantation by a group of special beings known as Life Carriers? And if we tout the The Urantia Book as a source of knowledge about evolution, biologists will surely ridicule our contentions, especially the idea of Life Carriers. How then shall we explain the The Urantia Book evolutionary concepts to the world in a way that many will find acceptable?
My feeling is that we need to deal with the concepts of evolution in the The Urantia Book just as we deal with other science in the book. We can and should point out that the book fully supports the idea that the universe and life are shaped and advanced by evolution, but that the science of the book generally conforms to the level of science existing at the time the Papers were received in the 1930’s. And I think we should make it very clear to potential readers that the authors emphasize that life is not an accident; its appearance is intentional and its ultimate source is God. After all, God as a source of life and the universe is just as good a theory and maybe even better than an accidental genesis. And while the idea of God having some helpers known as Life Carriers may seem strange at first, it isn’t totally outrageous to think that God doesn’t do everything himself. He uses both people and spiritual agencies to accomplish his ends.
I think that because the The Urantia Book is evolution friendly, it will appeal to many liberal folks, Christian and non-Christian alike. But I also believe that we need to emphasize the spiritual nature of the book and keep the science in its proper role of supporting actor.
“Was Darwin Wrong?” David Quammen, National Geographic magazine, November 2004. ↩︎
Dr. Ken Glasziou discusses this issue in depth in an excellent article, “The Origin of Life on Urantia.” The article is contained in a booklet called, “Science, Anthropology and Archeology in The Urantia Book”. This booklet can be viewed on The Urantia Book Fellowship website: www.urantia-book.org under Reader’s Archive. ↩︎
Reference from The Urantia Book, numbers indicate: Paper:Section.Paragraph ↩︎