Where do I stand in the Creation/Intelligent Design/Evolution debate?
via www.vandersluys.caI've written about the theory of evolution and related matters quite extensively on this blog.* I think I've managed to stay fairly balanced and open-minded on the issue, dealing more with the rhetoric and religiosity that tends to go along with the extremes in the debate (both for and against). Some time ago, however, a reader (Marcus the Bushwacker, I believe) asked me where I stood in the Creation-Evolution debate. The short answer: somewhere between the two extremes. The long answer follows.
When I enrolled in university I still believed in a literal 6-day creation, in which the process of creation would have probably involved audible pops as things instantly came into being at God's word. In our fourth year of university, however, Dixie and I became good friends with a couple who had both studied biology at an undergraduate level and one of whom was at the time doing a masters in the same field (he just got his PhD a couple of months ago). That they were a Christian couple—genuine disciples of Jesus—and they also they believed that the evidence pointed to an old earth and evolution at least on some level. This was a relatively novel thing to me. At the time, the only other Christian I was aware of that appeared to believe in some form of evolutionary theory was the philosopher and apologist William Craig. But here was an undogmatic couple of whom we could ask questions without judgment. As time went on I became aware of intelligent design theorists and their kin—William Dembski, Michael Behe and, to a lesser degree, Philip Johnson—who were able to reconcile, to some degree, God and the evidence for evolution.
Somewhere in there that I had begun to wonder why it really mattered, since it seemed to me that the important fact to be gleaned from the Genesis 1 and 2 texts was who did the creating, not how the creating was done. I eventually became a fence-sitter, not insisting on any particular stance in the Creation/Evolution debate, and there I remain. I'm generally just frustrated by the irrationality and judgmentalism that comes from the extremes of both sides of the issue.
In the last couple of years I've begun looking at Genesis 1 and 2 again and began to wonder if we haven't taken the creation story for granted and have become a little rusty on what the text actually says, or maybe we're basing our arguments on the Sunday School version of the story, because when the text is closely examined it seems to me that there is more there than is generally discussed. I went into this in greater detail in a previous post, but here are a couple of questions I have about a literal reading of the Biblical creation story:
- What do I do with the logical problems within the account, such as having day/night/evening/morning/days before there is anything created by which to track these units of time?
- What do I do with the discrepancies, particularly in the order of events, between the two creation accounts in Genesis 1 and 2?
- Some of imagery in the creation account is inconsistent (in my mind) with a young earth/6 day creation: the earth being "formless" and God shaping it; God forming man out of "dust of the earth"; that it was the land that produced living creatures (Genesis 1:24).
- What is the origin of the creation story? Similar creation stories predate, I believe, Israel and the fathers.
- Could a prehistoric human understand an evolutionary explanation of earth and the universe? In other words, maybe the creation story exists in the Bible as it does out of necessity rather than out of fact.
- What is the function of the creation story? What is its purpose?
The major source of the tension between creationists and evolutionists is a misunderstanding of what the Bible is, what science is and where each is authoritative. Folks like Richard Dawkins (for instance) think that science has something to say about the supernatural; 6-day creationists think that the Bible is a textbook for everything, including science. Problem is, they're both wrong. Science in-and-of itself can say nothing about the supernatural, since it can only study the natural. The Bible is a pre-scientific text and shows no evidence, as far as I know, that it was intended to be a science textbook.
The mistake many Christians make is thinking that science attempts to disprove God and the Bible, that it says that the Bible is wrong and therefore is untrustworthy, that there is no God. Ironically, in spite of Christianity's general disdain for evolution, Christians have put their faith in science, taken it to be authoritative in matters of theology, and so we tend to get really defensive. Any honest scientist would tell you that science does not—cannot—question faith, God or the Bible. What it can do is question our understanding or interpretation of the Bible, which is quite another thing; what if we simply misunderstand the creation story? Science can't say that God didn't create the world; science can say that the evidence in nature suggests that God didn't create the world in 6 literal days.
But here's the bottom line for me: when I look at the sky and the prairies, the mountains and forests, the birds of the air, the beasts of the field, the seemingly endless variety in the seas, the oceans and dunes; when I hear songbirds on a warm prairie afternoon; when I see the awesome power of nature in lightning, wind and water; when I see leaves change colour and smell the crisp, cool autumn air; when I live the change in seasons and see animals in their cycles of life; when I read about how everything works "just so" during a baby's development in the womb and when I see a baby born; when I see and hear all these things I know that God is and that He is powerful. The truth is, nature doesn't make sense to me without God. That's not a very scientific thing to say, I know. It doesn't matter to me how God did it—either way it's amazing.
"For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made" (Romans 1:20). If we really believe that God created the universe and all that is in it, why should we fear what science finds in its studies? Will science disprove the Creator by studying his creation? (This might sound a little tautological, but I'm not arguing for the existence of God, I'm assuming it.) I know that there are questions that need to be asked and theology to be examined; I don't know about all that, I don't have those answers, but I'm not convinced that studying creation is anything but a good thing, that the theories are volatile, and that science in-and-of itself cannot (or should not) threaten our understanding of God.
Did God create the heavens and the earth and everything in the earth in six 24 hour days? Maybe; He certainly could have. Did God set nature in motion (such as with a Big Bang)into billions of years of astronomical development and organic evolution? Maybe; He certainly could have. The evidence in nature seems to point in that direction. Did God do a combination of these things? Maybe; He certainly could have. Science can't tell us these things; science can only tell us what the evidence in nature suggests and that implicity excludes God, who is supernatural, as an explanation of nature's origins. Scientific explanation, by definition, can only be naturalistic.
That's where I'm at. Ask me again in 5 or 10 years and I will probably feel differently. Science will be different then, too. So will theology.
__________________________
via www.vandersluys.ca
posted by Lauren @ Monday, February 06, 2006
1 Comments:
I have spent a great deal of time wrestling with many of the same ideas you are pondering.
My main issue is the question of whether it is appropriate to change my view of what the Bible says due to the "provisional" theories of science.
I have come to be very sceptical that science has the tools to find truth. In a certain sense I am agnostic about the material world. I believe that it probably exists but utilizing earthly methods, we can't really know what it is.
What I've just written is just about as wierd as it sounds. Forgive me for being somewhat obtuse in my presentation.
Please take a look at my blog post
Is Science Logical?
and tell me what you think.
Many of my ideas need to be compared in detail to the Romans 1 passage you quoted. This text is foundational to the those Christian thinkers who embrace forms of scientific realism. We need to remember though that the Bible also says in 2 Corinthians 5:7 "... we walk by faith, not by sight.'
I intend to research the Romans 1 passage sometime in the next couple of years but my current feeling is the that it could (should?) be thought of this way: "... what can be known about God" ... "His eternal power and deity" ... "is plain to them, because God has shown it to them" because these things (His power and deity) have "been clearly perceived in the things thant have been made"
The terms "plain" and "clearly perceived" have been taken to indicate and justify a scientific realist perspective. I feel however that these terms indicate that we can see enough of how nature works to see God's power and dignity, but I do not take it to mean that Science can find much objective truth beyond that.
Thanks for the use of your ear (If you have read this far.) and please check out my Blog Article
Grier Daniels
Post a Comment
<< Home