prophet or scientific great

Watching Einstein and Darwin under the spotlight

Einstein and Darwin were the highlights of newspapers and media in 2005. Do you know why? They are all well-known scientists. This article compares them to see what their beliefs are like. Are their doctrines sacred and unquestionable final truths? People in the world have completely different attitudes towards the two doctrines. Why?

The honor of two people

Time Magazine selects its Person of the Year in the last issue of each year. The December 1999 issue of this publication selected the most influential figure of the 20th century, and the winner was of course Einstein, with a photo of the scientific giant as the cover.

The physics community calls 1905 the "Year of Miracles" because Einstein published five scientific papers that caused a sensation in the physics community, one of which talked about the "Special Theory of Relativity"; by 2005, he had published 100 papers Anniversary. He later completed the "General Theory of Relativity" in 1915 and died on April 18, 1955.

2005 marks the fiftieth anniversary of his death. To commemorate him, the United Nations designated 2005 as the "World Year of Physics". That year, the monthly "Physics Today" published by the American Physical Society published a series of articles in his honor. In addition, at 8:45 pm on the 50th anniversary of his death, two buildings at Princeton University, where he taught at that time, were illuminated, starting a global tour to symbolize Einstein's statement that "the speed of light remains constant." "The lighting relay.

Darwin, the founder of the theory of evolution, published the book "The Origin of Species" in 1859, proposing the theory of species evolution of "natural selection" and "survival of the fittest". He was born in 1809 and died in 1882, so 2005 is not a special anniversary. However, he became famous again in that year for completely different reasons than Einstein.

In 2004, the school board of Dover, Pennsylvania, decided that when the theory of evolution is taught in schools, the biology teacher must read a statement explaining that Darwin's theory of evolution is not true because it cannot fully explain the complex structure of living things. Students can check out various other theories, including Intelligent Design, in the school library. As a result, eleven parents sued the Board of Education in December 2004, demanding that the policy be banned.

Later, the court heard the case, and both sides hired representatives of scholars and experts to argue. The case was evenly matched and the barriers were clearly defined, and it became the focus of global attention. Therefore, the November 28, 2005 issue of "Newsweek" featured Darwin's portrait on the cover and introduced the theory of evolution. It was obvious that it favored Darwin and suppressed intelligent design.

On December 20, a judge declared the Denver Township Board of Education’s policy unconstitutional. Two days later, the prestigious Science magazine announced "new evidence that evolution is in progress," the first scientific breakthrough of 2005, ending a year that celebrated Einstein and Darwin.

The beliefs of the two

Einstein mentioned God many times, even jokingly calling God "the old man." He wanted to understand how God created the world and the laws of the world. He said, "I want to know what His old man is thinking. The rest is trivial." He famously said this in order to oppose quantum mechanics, which was in its infancy at the time. He said: "God does not throw dice with the universe." He also said: "God does not wear His heart on his sleeve." This means that God does not hang the laws of physics in plain sight so that people can easily understand them and obtain them easily. . He even said, "We are just trying to follow the traces of God."

Although his wisdom allowed him to see traces of God's hand and understand the laws of God's creation, he did not take the time to seek to know God. Maybe he was too keen on scientific research and ignored other things; maybe he was guilty because of the scandal and was unwilling to face the holy God; or maybe he just followed the trend and rejected Jesus as God because he was a Jew. His understanding of God was limited to the design of the universe rather than through a personal relationship with Jesus. According to reports, he once said that Jesus was a great Jew; but the eyes of his soul were not opened, and he passed by God. He did not shake hands and talk happily when they met. What a pity!

Darwin's father was a famous doctor in the central counties of England. His family was extremely wealthy, which allowed him to live a worry-free life. Although he entered Cambridge University to study theology in 1828, his interest was still in natural history. In 1831 he graduated from the seminary and audited a course in geology. Later he was recommended as an unpaid naturalist on HMS Beagle (a three-masted survey ship of the Royal Navy), conducting global surveys and collecting specimens. This five-year journey allowed him to collect a lot of natural history information, which became the basis for his use of "natural selection" to explain the origin of species.

Although Darwin's wife was a devout believer and often prayed for him, he had many doubts about his faith throughout his life and eventually considered himself an agnostic. Some scholars believe that his doubts came from meeting Christians who owned slaves and not understanding why a loving and powerful God would allow the world to suffer. He was buried in the famous Westminster Abbey in England with great honor after his death. However, the theory of evolution he proposed became a major obstacle to belief in God.

Many great scientists in the world believe in God, including Newton, Galileo, Faraday, Maxwell, etc. However, Einstein and Darwin do not really know God. This is of course a pity. It also reminds us that worldly wisdom can become a hindrance to faith. Paul made it very clear: “For in the wisdom of the world the world knew not God, but it pleased God through the foolishness of man’s teaching to save those who believe. This is the wisdom of God” (1 Corinthians 1). : twenty one)

Two people's mistakes

Although both Einstein and Darwin were extremely smart people, were they capable of making mistakes? If the answer is yes, how should we deal with the mistakes they made?

"Physics Today" (Note 1), published in March 2005, pointed out that there was a small error in Einstein's 1905 paper on the special theory of relativity. The November 2005 issue of "Physics Today" (Note 2) even titled "Einstein's Error" pointed out that in his early years, Einstein admitted that the biggest mistake in his life was to overcome the inability of general relativity to explain the average distribution of matter in the universe. problem, and introduced the concept of cosmological constant. In addition, he opposed quantum mechanics, which Bohr and others supported the development of at that time; but the successive victories of quantum mechanics showed that Einstein's opposition was wrong. A few words from Steven Weinberg, the author of the article, are very pertinent:

"We acknowledge that the most important pioneers of science were not prophets, and only the writings of prophets should be considered infallible. They were nothing more than great men who laid the foundation for us to better understand science."

Physicists honestly admit that Einstein was not a prophet, so it is not surprising that he made mistakes. However, many biologists are unwilling to talk about Darwin's mistakes and even firmly believe that with the advancement of science, the loopholes in the theory of evolution will be filled. They have tried every possible means and even spent huge sums of money to hire expert lawyers to go to court. There is absolutely no doubt about evolution. Falsely accusing teachers who say evolution is wrong is unconstitutional because it is promoting religion.

They absolutely do not allow any explanation of the origin of species other than the theory of evolution. They are alarmist and say that if they allow criticism of the theory of evolution, the United States will plummet in science and technology and become a third-class weak country. They threaten that if a certain state allows the teaching of intelligent design, it will be boycotted. Without academic conferences held in the state, high school graduates from the state will not be able to enter universities in other states.

Some people say that in some countries, you cannot criticize the government, but you can criticize Darwin; but in the United States, you can criticize the government, but you cannot criticize Darwin. Now it seems that we should add: "In the United States, you can criticize Einstein, but you cannot criticize Darwin." This attitude of worshiping Darwin as an infallible prophet and the theory of evolution as an unquestionable absolute truth is obviously It runs counter to the scientific spirit of seeking truth from facts.

It is worth noting that despite the fact that the "establishment" has indoctrinated ignorant schoolchildren with "evolution" for many years, and despite the mass media's bias towards "evolution", many polls over the decades have shown that 80% of Americans believe in God. Creation of the universe, less than fifty percent of people believe in evolution. People's eyes are sharp!

There are many books on the market that point out Darwin's mistakes, including "The Trial of Darwin" by Professor James Philip of the University of California and "Darwin's Black Box" by Mike Busch. When Darwin wrote "On the Origin of Species", he could not provide good examples of evolution through natural selection, so he could only borrow some examples of artificial selection. For example, only sheep with the longest wool are selected for breeding. As a result, ordinary sheep will "evolve" into long-haired sheep. In fact, this example is a scam that leads people astray. The person who selects the seeds must use his wisdom and skills to select and cultivate. The essence of the theory of evolution is to replace intelligent design with a random process that occurs without purpose in nature. He actually uses the results of intelligent design as an example of evolution.

On the other hand, Darwin believed that extremely small but beneficial genetic changes could accumulate over time and eventually produce new varieties. If this were correct, there should be many fossils left showing intermediate species that evolved gradually during transitional periods, but there are no such fossils. Furthermore, the presumed intermediate species does not increase its chances of survival. Even the famous evolution professor Stephen Jay Gould asked: "Even if you have 5% of the eyes, what's the benefit?"

From the perspective of a biochemist, Michael Behe pointed out that many microorganisms and cells have extremely complex and irreducible systems. It is very difficult for them to accumulate multiple, slightly different, incremental changes from the old system to form a new system. Because the previous system would be completely inoperable as long as it loses an important part (the second issue of this journal contains the detailed content of the intelligent design theory).

Even some people who support the theory of evolution believe that it cannot be achieved by accumulating small mutations because the number of small mutations required is too large and the time available for evolution is too short. As a result, it can only be assumed that there are large mutations that occur accidentally and without purpose. Sir Arthur Keith is a famous British evolutionary anthropologist. He frankly admitted: "The theory of evolution has not been proven, and it cannot be proven. We believe in it simply because the only possibility other than it is special Creation, and that’s incredible.”

Tips for identifying

At this point, the author is willing to give some exposure and put forward some suggestions for readers' reference.

(1) Learn the difference between “creation and evolution”

The theory of relativity has no direct impact on our beliefs, so we do not necessarily need to learn the theory of relativity. But the theory of evolution is different. It often becomes an obstacle to belief in God. British biologist Richard Dawkins, an atheist and ardent defender of the theory of evolution, said that evolution "makes it possible for people to become intellectually satisfactory atheists." The average believer should have a basic understanding of evolution, intelligent design and creationism, knowing that all three recognize the characteristics of biological display of design, but "evolutionists" believe that design comes from blind random mutations and natural selection; "intelligent design theory" "Creationists" believe that it comes from a designer; "Creationists" believe that it comes from a knowable designer, who is the God revealed in the Bible.

Today, the vast majority of Chinese churches do not have Sunday school classes that teach creationism, and it is not easy to find a textbook written by a Chinese that teaches "creation and evolution." The important topic of "creation and evolution" has never been discussed in the Sunday pulpit, and very few seminaries offer such courses.

Once, a seminary professor asked me to help provide information and suggest a sermon outline because she was invited to preach at a church and the assigned topic was "Apes became humans, or did God create humans?" She didn't know. How to prepare a sermon. This shows that believers are extremely interested in such topics. Theological schools, churches and publishing houses can no longer turn a blind eye or turn a deaf ear to such an important topic! Due to the lack of knowledge among believers in this area, it is easy for believers to adopt the extremes of completely agreeing or completely denying the theory of evolution. What a pity!

(2) Don’t blindly oppose all explanations of “evolution”

We cannot dismiss the contributions of evolution simply because it casts doubt on God. The theory of evolution is not entirely wrong, as it has successfully explained many biological and ecological phenomena. If we oppose blindly, we will only show our ignorance and be ridiculed as ignorant and stubborn.

We need to understand that there are two distinct kinds of "evolution" and they must not be confused. One is the change within the same species, which is a horizontal, small change, called microevolution; the other is the change from one species to another completely different species, which is a vertical, grand change. , called macroevolution.

In my humble opinion, since most people may know that "Relativity" includes "Special Theory of Relativity" and "General Theory of Relativity", it is best to call "microevolution" "Special evolution" and "macroevolution" "General evolution" (General evolution). When anyone talks about the theory of evolution, he must first make it clear which kind of evolution he is talking about.

"Microevolution" or "narrow evolution" includes changes within the same species such as the shape, size, color, and internal organs of organisms. It is a phenomenon that can be observed and can be explained by the survival of the fittest. This is a fact.

On the other hand, according to the "theory of evolution", "macroevolution" or "broad evolution" includes the changes from dinosaurs to birds, and from apes to humans. It is a phenomenon that is hypothesized to have accumulated over hundreds of millions of years of tiny changes. It is the result of human beings themselves. A theory that cannot be observed or tested experimentally.

In other words, both "evolutionists" and "intelligent designists" agree that "evolution in the narrow sense" is a fact and should be taught in classrooms. The difference is: "Evolutionists" believe that "evolution in the narrow sense" can be extended to "evolution in the broad sense", so "evolution in the broad sense" is also a fact. However, "intelligent design theorists" believe that there is a certain limit to the extension. If it is extended to the long term, there will be great errors or even complete mistakes. Therefore, we cannot say that "generalized evolution" is a fact. At best, it can only be said to be a theory and a model. Therefore, the theory or model of "intelligent design" should be allowed to be compared with it to see which one is more reasonable.

(3) Understand the key points of the dispute between both parties

Basically, the debate between "evolutionists" and "intelligent designists" is a debate between atheists and theists. For atheists, God's intervention is absolutely not allowed, and they believe that the wide variety of living things observed today must have been produced through the process of evolution over millions of years. If you cannot imagine the process of evolution in a wild way now, you must first firmly believe that the "theory of evolution" is absolutely correct. With the advancement of science and technology, a natural explanation that does not require divine intervention will surely be found in the future. For theists, there is a broad mind that accepts scientific and verifiable explanations, and also allows intelligent design to intervene in special circumstances. Because it is very far-fetched to use Darwinian evolution to explain the phenomenon of "generalized evolution" and it is impossible to verify it experimentally, it is more reasonable to use intelligent design to explain it.

As for whether "intelligent design theory" should be allowed to be taught in science classes, it is a matter of opinion. Both U.S. President Bush and British Prime Minister Blair agreed to teach "evolution" and "intelligent design" simultaneously in science classes, believing that it would help students think. However, Pennsylvania Judge Jones ruled that Dover District schools cannot teach "evolution" and "intelligent design" in science classes. "Intelligent Design" because it is a religion.

The author believes that the key point is how to define "science". If science is defined as "human beings seek natural explanations for observed phenomena", then obviously "intelligent design" cannot be talked about in science classes, because "intelligent design" and "divine" are not the same. "It's all supernatural. If we define science as "human beings seek reasonable explanations for observed phenomena," then we can obviously talk about the difference between "evolution" and "intelligent design" and let students compare which explanation is more reasonable.

Hypothetical origins of the two pottery pieces

Before concluding this article, let us consider the following hypothetical example. A group of geologists were meeting to discuss the origin of two pieces of pottery excavated from underground layers. They announced in advance that because they were not anthropologists, they would never allow "human" intervention when discussing or conducting scientific research, and would only allow "natural" procedures to be used to explain the formation of the two pottery vessels.

The first piece of pottery was a small piece of pottery and the second piece of pottery was a kettle pottery. Geologists conducted experiments and roasted the soil on a fire. The resulting product was very similar to the excavated pottery shards. Therefore, it is imagined that the pottery shards were baked from the earth when the mountains were burned by fire or thunder and lightning struck. They then extended the origin of the small pottery fragments and imagined that after hundreds of millions of years, thousands of small pottery fragments were washed away by water and happened to come together to form the shape of a kettle. Occasionally, there happened to be thunder and lightning or fire burning the mountain, allowing it to fuse into the excavated pottery. Do you think this explanation is reasonable?

Another more reasonable explanation is obviously that "pottery is a product of human civilization" and the result of "intelligent design." However, because it was stated in advance that "human beings" were not allowed to participate in the explanation, the fallacy that "thunder and lightning caused kettles and pottery" was respected as a golden rule and a truth that could not be doubted. Do you agree with this kind of rhetoric and self-centered behavior? Will this help science?

Reference works:
1. Alex Harvey and Engelbert Schucking, “A Small Puzzle from 1905”, 34-36, Physics Today, March 2005.
2. Steven Weinberg, "Einstein's Mistake," 31-35, Physics Today, November 2005.

Author profile