|
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. 58:6.3,5 [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?
|
|
