Lesson video

Hello, my name's Mrs. Rawbone, and I'd like to welcome you to this lesson on Christian responses to non-religious accounts.

In today's lesson, you will be explaining Christian teachings on the origins of human life and how they interact with scientific views.

Some keywords we'll be using are creationism, evolution, natural selection, and theistic evolution.

Creationism is the belief that God created life exactly in the way described in Genesis.

Evolution is the scientific theory of the development of species which involves a process of natural selection and survival of the fittest.

Natural selection is the process where the fittest organisms survive and reproduce.

Theistic evolution is the belief that God works through the process of evolution.

Our lesson today will be split into two parts.

We'll be looking at scientific views on the origins of life and Christian responses to scientific explanations.

So let's begin with scientific views on the origins of life.

Andeep and Laura are asking some philosophical questions about the origins of life.

Andeep asked, "Was life created or designed? Laura says, "Is life's value dependent on its origins?" What might help us to answer these questions? Pause the video, and if you're able to, turn and talk to someone nearby, or you can talk to me, give yourself some time, and rejoin when you're ready.

Charles Darwin famously published his book "The Origin of the Species" in 1859, in which he outlined the scientific theory of evolution by natural selection.

Born in 1809, Darwin was fascinated by nature from a young age.

He initially studied medicine but later turned to theology at Cambridge, where his interest in natural history grew.

In 1831, Darwin joined the HMS Beagle on a five-year voyage to survey the coastlines of South America.

While exploring the Galapagos Islands, Darwin noticed that the finches on different islands had distinct beak shapes adapted to the types of foods available to them.

This led him to consider that species could change over time based on their environment.

Darwin also collected fossils, plants, and animals that showed similarities between current species and their ancient ancestors, suggesting speeches were not fixed but evolved over time.

Back in England, Darwin continued refining his theory, influenced by scientists like Jean-Baptiste Lamarck and Thomas Malthus.

These ideas helped shape his theory of natural selection, where organisms with traits suited better to their environment are more likely to survive and reproduce, passing these traits on to future generations.

Over time, these small changes could lead to new species.

Darwin hesitated to publish his work, however, knowing it would challenge traditional religious views of creation.

However, in 1858, he received a letter from Alfred Russel Wallace, a naturalist who had independently arrived at a similar theory.

This at last prompted Darwin to publish his ideas in 1859 on "The Origin of Species." The book was revolutionary, providing evidence from his observations, fossil records, and experiments, and directly challenging the story of creation and Genesis.

Although Darwin had initially believed in the creation story, over time his faith in the literal interpretation of Genesis weakened as he accepted the evidence for evolution.

While he did not claim evolution disproved God, he saw the natural world as governed by laws that could be explained scientifically rather than relying on divine intervention.

Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection reshaped our understanding of life's origin and development.

It suggested all species, including humans, share common ancestry.

Darwin's work continues to influence biology today, further developed by thinkers like Richard Dawkins, who expanded on the theory in his book "The Selfish Gene." Dawkins emphasised how natural selection drives evolution at the level of genes, not individuals, continuing Darwin's legacy of explaining life through natural processes rather than divine creation.

Sofia asked her family friend Warren, who is a scientist, about the theory of evolution.

"What do scientists mean when they say all life is related?" Warren replies, "Think of a family tree, but for all living things.

The branches show how different species are related based on evidence like DNA and fossils.

Humans are closely related to animals like chimpanzees, meaning we share a common ancestor from millions of years ago.

The tree helps us understand how life evolved over time and that it was a long process of change." According to scientists, the Earth was formed approximately 4.

5 billion years ago, life first appeared around 3.

8 billion years ago, and modern humans did not appear until 300,000 years ago.

Now this could be quite difficult to get your head around because the timescales are huge.

One way to think about it is to compress it into a 24-hour period.

So this is the Earth's entire history.

If the Earth was formed at 12:00 AM, the first life appeared at around 4:00 AM, complex multicellular life appeared around 8:30 PM, dinosaurs dominated from 10 to 11:00 PM, and modern humans appeared just one second before midnight.

So that gives you an idea of how, according to evolutionary theory, life evolved over a huge period of time.

Let's check your understanding.

Which of the following best describes the process of evolution? Is it a, a predetermined plan leading to the creation of humans as the final species? Is it b, a gradual process where species change over time due to natural selection and adaptation? Is it c, a one-time event where all species were created in their current form? Or is it d, a process where weaker species are eliminated, leaving only the strongest individuals? Take a moment to think about your answer, pause the video, and come back when you're ready to check.

So well done if you put b, a gradual process where species change over time due to natural selection and adaptation.

Brandon, who is a humanist, has been asked whether he thinks religious and scientific accounts of the origins of life are compatible.

Brandon says, "Religious accounts of the origins of life are not compatible with scientific accounts because they rely on faith, whereas science is based on evidence.

Scientific methods provide us with reliable, testable explanations for life's origins, like evolution, which contradicts religious stories like Genesis." Looking at the continuum there, going from incompatible to compatible, where would you put Brandon's view on the scale and why? So have a look again at what he said, take a moment, you can talk to someone nearby if there's someone around or you can pause and talk to me, and then come back when you're ready to rejoin.

We're going to check your understanding again.

Is this statement true or false? Humanists believe religious and scientific accounts of the origins of life are compatible as they both provide equally valid explanations.

Now, once you've decided whether it's true or false, I'd also like you to think about why.

So pause the video, give yourself time to do that, and then come back when you're ready to rejoin and check your answer.

Well done if you put false.

Let's have a think about why this is false.

It's false because humanism prioritises scientific explanations which are based on evidence and testing.

Many humanists argue that religious accounts rely on faith, and therefore they're not compatible with scientific theories such as evolution.

For our first practise task, Jacob has started to write a paragraph about the arguments a humanist might use to disagree with the view that religious teachings about the origins of life are compatible with the theory of evolution.

I would like you to copy this paragraph, filling in the gaps that he has left.

Jacob wrote, "A humanist would argue that evolution describes how life changes over time through natural selection without any need for.

There is strong scientific, to support this.

In contrast, religious teachings, which describe the universe as being created by God, cannot be.

This means religious creation stories and evolution are.

." So take your time, reread what Jacob has written, think about what you've learned, and develop each of those sentence gaps there.

Pause the video and come back when you're ready to see what you could have written.

Let's have a look at what you could have said.

A humanist would argue that evolution describes how life changes over time through natural selection without any need for a creator.

There is strong scientific evidence, such as fossils and genetic research, to support this.

In contrast, religious teachings which describe the universe as being created by God cannot be proven through scientific methods.

This means religious creation stories and evolution are incompatible.

So well done if you managed to talk about the fact there is no need for a creator, that there's evidence for evolution and not for biblical or other religious accounts, and that therefore, according to humanists, they are incompatible.

For the second part of our lesson, we're going to be looking at Christian responses to scientific explanations.

Christians try to answer questions such as, are religious and scientific accounts of the origins of life compatible, by consulting sources authority such as the Bible and church teachings.

They might interpret the sources differently or emphasise one more than another, and they might also use their conscience and ability to reason, which are gifts that they see as given by God, to work out their views.

Here is a photograph of the first page of the Bible from the Book of Genesis.

Many theologians think that Genesis contains two different accounts of creation and that these were written by two different people.

And that's because the accounts have different styles and they focus on different details.

The differences suggest they might have come from different traditions and that they were later combined into one text.

Genesis 1:1-2:3 is a structured account of the creation of the universe and life in six days.

It begins, "Finally, God said, 'Let us make mankind in our image.

' So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them: male and female He created them." And this is from Genesis 1:26-27.

So God speaks life into existence.

Humans, both male and female, were created last out of all of the creatures.

And humans are made in God's image and so reflect him.

Genesis 2:4-25 is more of a narrative of creation and it places Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden.

Genesis 2:7 and 21-22 say, "Then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

He took one of the man's ribs and then closed up the place with flesh.

Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man." So God breathes life into Adam.

God is a hands-on, personal deity who shapes creation directly.

And interestingly, in this account, other living things are created after Adam.

So here's an answer to the question, outline three differences between Christian and scientific accounts of the origins of life.

It's the sort of thing you could get in the exam, where you are asked to develop three sentences describing the differences between those accounts.

Christianity teaches that God, life, while science explains it through natural processes.

The Bible says humans were made in God's image, but science sees them as, from earlier species.

The Bible says God, life into Adam, where scientific evidence suggests life evolved through natural selection.

So take a moment to read those three sentences carefully and to work out what you think the missing words are.

Pause the video and come back when you're ready to check.

So well done if you put for the first point that Christianity teaches that God created life, and for the second, that science sees them as evolved from earlier species, and for the third, the Bible says God breathed life into Adam.

So the key differences we're looking for here are the involvement of God and how God was involved in creation according to Christian accounts.

Most denominations teach that Genesis account and theory of evolution are compatible, and they argue for something called theistic evolution.

Now, there are some, however, who argue they are not compatible, and they argue for creationism.

The Catholic church teaches that the Genesis creation story is metaphorical and that God is the ultimate creator who worked through natural processes such as evolution.

In 2014, Pope Francis stated that evolution and creation accounts are compatible, and he advocated for theistic evolution.

So this is the idea that God guided evolution.

The Anglican Church, Church of England, holds that evolution and Christian belief are compatible.

In 2008, the church issued a statement which said that evolution does not undermine the belief in God as creator.

Genesis should be read metaphorically and not as a literal scientific account.

The Greek Orthodox Church supports the view that a belief in God as creator and in evolution are compatible.

Genesis should be understood in a non-literal, metaphorical way.

The emphasis is on God's care in the creation process, allowing natural processes like evolution to unfold within his design.

Plymouth Brethren beliefs are that Genesis account and evolution are not compatible, and this is because the Bible teaches that God created the world in six literal days and that therefore the Earth is about 6,000 to 10,000 years old.

They reject evolution and affirm that God directly created all life, aligning with young Earth creationism.

Let's check your understanding.

Which Christian denomination teaches that Genesis and devolution are not compatible? A, the Roman Catholic Church, b, the Anglican Church, Church of England, c, the Greek Orthodox Church, or d, the Plymouth Brethren.

So take a moment to decide which is the correct answer, pause the video if you need to, and come back when you're ready to check.

So well done if you put d, the Plymouth Brethren.

So they're arguing for a creationist rather than a theistic evolution view.

Danielle, who is a Roman Catholic Christian, has been asked whether she thinks religious and scientific accounts of the origins of life are compatible.

She says, "Religious and scientific accounts of the origins of life are compatible.

The scientific method helps us understand how life developed through evolution, a process which I believe was guided by God.

Theistic evolution allows for the findings of science while maintaining faith in God as the creator, showing that both science and faith can coexist.

So looking at the scale, with incompatible at one end and compatible at the other, where would you place Danielle's view? Does she think that scientific explanations are compatible with the Christian account? If you can turn and talk to someone nearby, please do, or you can pause and talk to me.

Come back when you're ready to move on.

Rachel, a Plymouth Brethren Christian, has been asked whether she thinks religious and scientific accounts of the origins of life are compatible.

She says, "I'm a fundamentalist, so for me, the Bible's account of the origins of life is God's word and it must be true.

Science relies on methods that question and test things, which contradicts the Bible's clear teaching that God created the world in six days.

As a creationist, I believe the Bible's account is literal and true, so it conflicts with scientific theories like evolution." So thinking about that scale again, from incompatible to compatible, where would you put Rachel's view on the scale and why? If you're able to turn and talk to someone, please do, or pause and talk to me, and come back when you're ready to move on.

Let's check your understanding.

What does someone who believes in theistic evolution believe about the origins of life? A, that God created the universe as described in Genesis, b, that God set evolution in motion, c, that evolution began without the need for God, or d, that neither God or evolution have anything to do with the origins of the universe.

Take a moment to decide on your answer, pause the video if you need to, and then come back when you're ready to check.

Well done if you put b, God set evolution in motion.

So theistic evolution is the belief that God guides evolution.

A 2018 survey asked Americans whether they thought God was involved in evolution.

18% of those asked believe that God created humans in their present form, so this is creationism.

48% think that God guided evolution.

That's theistic evolution.

And 33% thought that humans evolved without God.

What does this data tell us about views on the origins of life? If you're able to pause and turn and talk to someone nearby, please do.

Come back when you're ready to move on.

So you might have noticed that the majority of Americans still credit God with humankind.

Have a look at the data again.

18% creationism, 48% theistic evolution, and 33% humans evolved without God.

What does this data suggest about views on the origins of life? Is it a, most Americans who were surveyed believe God created humans in their present form? Is it b, most Americans who were surveyed accept the theory of evolution? Or is it c, most Americans surveyed reject the belief that God was involved in the origins of human life? So take a moment to read the data again, pause the video to jot down your answer, and come back when you're ready to check.

Well done if you put b, most Americans who were surveyed accept the theory of evolution.

So for Part 1 of Task B, you're going to explain two Christian beliefs about the origins of life.

In your answer, you must refer to a source of wisdom and authority.

Now, this is a really important skill at GCSE because you are always expected to mention where a belief has come from, to the source of wisdom and authority, but to link it in with the actual belief itself.

So here's some suggested guidance.

You can use point develop, point develop to explain your two beliefs.

But what you need to do is name and link in a relevant source and explain what it teaches in relation to your point.

Now, you only have to do this once because the question says refer to a source.

So you only have to link it in with one of your points.

It could be a quotation, it could be a general belief, or a general teaching, but you do need to name and say where it's from.

So take some time now to think back through what we've learned.

Pause the video, write your two paragraphs, and then just check you followed this guidance before you come back to see how you did.

Let's have a look at what you could have said.

Some Christians believe in creationism and interpret the Genesis account of creation literally.

They believe God created life in its current form, as the Bible says, "So God created mankind in his own image, Genesis 1:27.

They understand this as meaning that humans were created purposefully by God, were the end point of creation, and did not evolve alongside other forms of life.

In contrast, many Christians, such as Roman Catholics, take a more liberal approach to interpreting the Bible, which means they understand the Genesis account of the origins of life metaphorically and accept theistic evolution.

They see evolution as the process God used to create life.

So hopefully you can see here that we've got two different points that have been developed, but we've also got that source of authority, which was Genesis 1:27, and it linked in with the point.

Have a look at your work, see if you've done similar.

It might not be exactly the same, but see if you've made two points developed and linked in your source.

Well done if you have managed to do that.

For Part 2 of our practise task, Rachel, Brandon, and Danielle are discussing the statement, religious teachings about the origins of life are compatible with the theory of evolution.

I'd like you to explain how each of them might develop their points.

Rachel, who's a Plymouth Brethren and a creationist, says evolution and creation are incompatible 'cause.

Brandon, who's a humanist and an atheist, says creation and evolution are incompatible because.

And Danielle, who's a Roman Catholic Christian, supports theistic evolution, and she says creation and evolution are compatible because.

So we've got three different views.

Rachel and Brandon, and although they, one of them believes in God and one doesn't, do actually have a similar opinion on whether they're compatible, but for very different reasons.

So take the time to think about how to develop each of those points, pause the video, and come back when you're ready to see what you could have written.

You could have said, for Rachel, evolution and creation are incompatible because Genesis explains that God created the world in six literal days and does not include an account of evolution.

Now, for Brandon, who also thinks they're incompatible, you could have said, science explains life through evidence, such as fossil records, without needing God or religious accounts of creation.

And for Danielle, who actually thinks they are compatible, you could have said, science explains how life developed, but religion answers why we exist, showing that God used the process of evolution to create life.

So well done if you made it clear that Rachel stresses believing the Bible literally, that Brandon stresses that science and its evidence means we have to reject the Bible, and that Danielle sees a connection between the two.

In today's lesson, we have looked at the theory of evolution, proposed by Darwin, and how it explains that species develop through natural selection over millions of years.

We looked at what the Bible teaches about the sanctity of life: God made mankind in his image and he breathed life into Adam.

We've learned that most Christian denominations teach that evolution is compatible with faith and accept theistic evolution, believing God used evolution to create life.

We also learned that young Earth creationists, such as those who belong to some fundamentalist groups like the Plymouth Brethren, believe life was created as described in Genesis.

And finally, we learned that humanists see evolution as a purely natural process based on scientific evidence rather than faith.

Thank you so much for working with me today.

Well done for all of your hard work and effort.