Lesson video

Hello, my name's Mrs. Rawbone, and I'd like to welcome you to this lesson on the relationship between religious and scientific views on the origins of life.

This is part of a unit on religion and life.

In today's lesson, you will be able to explain scientific views on the origins of human life and how Christian views interact with them.

Keywords that we'll be using today are creationism, evolution, natural selection, and theistic evolution.

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

Evolution is a 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 a belief that God works through the process of evolution.

Today's lesson will form two parts.

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

Let's get started on the scientific views on the origins of life.

Charles Darwin famously published his book "The Origin of 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 food 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 that species were not fixed but evolved over time.

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

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

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

Darwin hesitated to publish his work, however, because he knew it would challenge traditional 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 in "On the Origin of Species." The book was revolutionary, providing evidence from his observations, for fossil records and experiments, and directly challenging the creation story in 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.

And whilst 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 on Earth around 3.

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

One way to get your head around these huge numbers is to compress the Earth's entire history into 24 hours.

So, if we did this, the Earth was formed at 12:00 am.

The first life appeared around 4:00 am.

Complex multicellular life emerged around 8:30 pm.

Dinosaurs dominated from about 10:00 pm to 11:00 pm.

And modern humans appeared about one second before midnight.

So, it gives you a bit of an idea about how long the process of human life developing really was.

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? So, take your time to think about the best answer.

Pause the video.

Come back when you're ready to check.

Well done if you put B.

The point is that it was a very gradual process taking place over a hugely long period of time.

Jacob and Sofia have been comparing the Genesis account of the origins of life with the theory of evolution.

Sofia says, "The Bible says humans were created directly by God and are the endpoint of creation, but evolution says humans are part of the ongoing process of natural selection." Jacob says, "Genesis says everything was created in six days, but Darwin's theory has evidence such as fossils, showing that species, including humans, evolved gradually over millions of years." Let's check your understanding.

Give one way in which the Genesis and evolution accounts of the origins of life differ.

So, have a think about what Jacob and Sofia were discussing, and then what you've learned about Darwin's theory of evolution, and pick a difference.

Pause the video to give yourself time to answer that, and come back when you're ready to check.

You could have said: Genesis says humans are the endpoint of creation.

Genesis says humans were created directly by God.

Genesis says everything was created in six days.

Evolution says life evolved over millions of years.

Evolution is supported by evidence such as fossil records.

Evolution says species, including humans, continue to evolve.

Well done if you managed to get any of those points in your answer.

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

He 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." So, have a look at the scale.

We've got incompatible on the left-hand side and compatible on the right.

Where would you put Brandon's view on this scale, and why? Does he think the accounts work together, which means they're compatible, or does he think that they don't, which means they're incompatible? Or is he somewhere in between? Pause the video, talk to someone nearby if you can, or you can talk to me, and then come back when you're ready to move on.

For Task A, part one, Jacob has started to write a paragraph of 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 Jacob has left.

He has written, 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 to write up Jacob's paragraph, filling in those gaps that he has left.

Pause the video, and when you are ready, come back to check your work.

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've got across the idea that there'd be no need for a creator in a humanist view and that there's evidence for evolution, whereas there isn't evidence for the Bible or other religious accounts of creation, therefore they're incompatible.

Let's move on to 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 the universe compatible?' by consulting sources of authority such as the Bible, church teachings or tradition.

And they might interpret these sources differently or perhaps emphasise one more than another.

They might also use their conscience and their ability to reason, which means to work things out, because they see these as gifts from God.

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

Some argue that they are not compatible, and they might argue for something called creationism.

So, the Catholic Church teaches that the Genesis creation story is metaphorical and that God is the ultimate creator who works through natural processes such as evolution.

In 2014, Pope Francis actually issued a statement where he said that evolution and creation accounts are compatible, and he advocated for theistic evolution, in the words that the idea that God controls and started evolution.

The Anglican Church, known as the Church of England in this country, holds that evolution and Christian belief are compatible.

In a 2008 statement, the Church said that evolution does not undermine the belief in God as Creator.

Genesis should be read metaphorically, 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.

However, Plymouth Brethren beliefs are that the Genesis account and evolution are not compatible.

This is because they believe that the Bible teaches 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 something called Young Earth Creationism.

Let's check your understanding.

Which Christian denomination teaches that Genesis and evolution are not compatible? Is it A, the Roman Catholic Church? B, the Anglican Church, Church of England? C, the Greek Orthodox Church? Or D, the Plymouth Brethren? Pause the video if you need to, to jot down your answer, and then come back to check when you are ready.

So well done if you put D.

It was Plymouth Brethren, who have a more creationist view of how life came about.

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, let's have a think about that scale that we used earlier when we looked at Brandon's comment.

Where would you put Danielle's view on the scale? Is it more to the left, showing that she doesn't think religion and science work together, or is it more over to the right? Pause the video, and if you're able to, talk to someone nearby, or you can 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 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, looking at that scale again, where would you put Rachel's view on this scale? Does she think that religion and science are incompatible, or does she think they are compatible? Pause the video, turn and talk to someone nearby if you can, and come back when you're ready to join.

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 your time to think about the right answer.

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

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

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

So those who were creationists and believed that God created humans in their present form were 18% of the people asked.

Those who believed in theistic evolution, that God guided evolution to allow humans to evolve, were 48%.

And those who said humans evolved without God were 33%.

What does this data tell us about views on the origins of life? Pause the video, turn and talk to someone nearby if you can, and then come back when you're ready to move on.

It tells us that the majority of Americans still credit God with humankind.

Let's check your understanding of that data.

What does it suggest about views on the origins of life? So remember, we had 18% on creationism, 48% on theistic evolution, and 33% who go for evolution alone, without God Does it tell us A, most Americans who were surveyed believe God created humans in their present form? B, most Americans in the survey accept the theory of evolution? Or C, most Americans surveyed reject the belief that God was involved in the origins of life? Have a think about the answer, look at the data again, pause the video if you need to, and then come back when you're ready to check.

So, well done if you spotted that B was the correct answer, because it's saying that most Americans accept the theory of evolution.

For part one of Task B, I'd like you to explain two religious beliefs about the origins of life.

In this, you're going to refer to sacred writings or another source of religious belief and teaching.

Here's some guidance.

Use the structure, point, develop, point, develop.

Now, in addition to making two different points and developing them, you have to, somewhere in your answer, name and link in a relevant source of authority and explain what it teaches in relation to the point that you have made.

So, for example, you could make a point and develop it, and link a teaching with that one, and then move on to make a different point.

Or you could do it the other way around.

You could start with a point that you develop, make a second point, and bring the teaching in there.

The teaching itself could be a very specific quotation, for example, from the Bible, or it could be a general belief or a teaching of the Church or something like that.

But make it really clear that this is a source of authority of religious belief when you write your answer.

So, take your time, pause the video, think carefully about what you've been learning today.

You're trying to make two different points about, in our case, Christian beliefs about the origins of life.

Come back when you're ready to check what you've written.

So, let's have a look at what you could've written.

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 endpoint 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, well done if you've managed to pick out two approaches, and you might well have contrasted theistic evolution with creationism, and if you managed to use a reference.

An obvious one is a reference to the Bible.

So, for part two of Task B, Rachel, Brandon, and Danielle are discussing the statement: 'Religious teachings about the origins of life are compatible with the theory of evolution.

' Your job is to explain how each of them might develop their point.

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

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

And Danielle, who's a Roman Catholic, supports theistic evolution.

She says creation and evolution are compatible because.

So, take your time to think about what they would say next, how they would expand on their point, what arguments they would use.

Pause the video, take the time that you need, and then come back when you're ready to look at 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.

For Brandon, creation and evolution are incompatible because science explains life through evidence, such as fossil records, without needing God or religious accounts of creation.

And for Danielle, creation and evolution are compatible because 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 managed to give a reason to help develop each of their points.

In today's lesson on the relationship between religious and scientific views on the origins of life, we have looked at evolution, proposed by Charles Darwin, and how it explains how species developed through natural selection over millions of years.

Many Christians accept theistic evolution, believing God used evolution to create life.

Christian creationists believe life was created exactly as described in Genesis.

Most Christian denominations teach that evolution is compatible with faith.

Some fundamentalist groups, like the Plymouth Brethren, disagree.

Humanists see evolution as a purely natural process without the need for God, based on scientific evidence rather than faith.

Thank you so much for all your hard work with me today on this lesson.