where did Human come from? Pt 2

Here come my second part of "where did human come from". Anyway, since the presentation was over and i am just too lazy to spell out the entire presentation content letter by letter, hence, i will do a quick summary here on the science part and substantiate with my personal opinion on this topic.

From Scientific point of view, Charles Darwin theory of Evolution form the basis of the view of Scientific community towards human origin. In his second book "Descent of Man", he had stipulated that:

"Man is descended from a hairy, tailed quadruped, arboreal in its habits, an inhabitants of the old world, classed amongst the Quadrumana, an ancient progenitor of the monkeys and ape. The Quadrumana derived from an ancient marsupial animal, through a long series of diversified forms, came from an amphibian like creature, which in turn came from a fish like animal"

Darwin, Descent of Man

If your previous understanding towards the evolution theory is that human are decedent of ape then you are 100% wrong. According to the Father of Evolution, the most primitive life form is a fish like creature appears in Paleozoic era. Since Evolution talks about common ancestry, hence macro evolution across billions of years has give rise to the modern human, the homo Sapien we are today.

However, controversy still arises within the scientific community itself although the evidence of speciation or microevolution (of genus Homininid, or within the homo species) was well documented, but not at the level of macroevolution. Genetic studies showed that there is 96% (not 99% as previously claimed) of similarities between a chimp genome and human genome. Although i am not practicing sciences anymore, i still can comprehend that the scientific evidence of microevolution cannot be simply disregarded. However macro evolution (fish-human) is something questionable.

Personally, i am not taking side by saying that evolution theory is right or wrong. If human made from soil and spirit of God is bizarre, how about human evolutionized from a fish like creature or even a single cell organism in the primordial soup theory? Does that sound anyhow more convincing?

The truth is there is no way for us to put the two school of thoughts- Science: evolution and Religion: creationism on a same balance and weigh it, simply because they are of different nature. Religion is based on faith, whereby it was written clearly in Hebrew: 11:1 "Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see." Whilst Science is based on facts and evidence (something we can see). Furthermore, Religious cardinal truth/teaching is absolute, cannot be changed and challenged. While science is progressive and accumulative. Today the evolution theory holds true, maybe in another light years time, some researcher will come out with new discovery saying that human are descended from some alien species in outer space.

To what extent can a scientist be spiritual? can those with naturalistic view of the world, who doesnt believe in God, spirit and ghost accept human are made by The Almighty's hand? There seems a prima facie paradox here since spirituality were often posit as a non physical realm category separate from this secular world described by science. However, despite of how analytical and scientifical i am, I've always thought that science is there to help us to understand more about God. In this never ending course of scientific discovery, there will be one point whereby this path will intersect with the human belief, and that harmony between the two can be somehow possible.

That's my faith for being a Science thinker and a God believer.

At the end of the day, doesn't matter a religionist or a scientist, everyone needs faith to believe in certain things.