Do scientists who accept evolution have equivalent a priori assumptions (old earth, evolution, common ancestor etc.) that causes them to process all facts through a filter that can yield only support for their assumption? That is, are YEC and evolution two faith-based competing theories?
I do not think so, because there are many, many independent lines of evidence that do not make sense in a YEC interpretation of Genesis, but do make sense in the context of evolution and common descent. And of course, this is how the theory developed. A YEC scientist (Darwin) went out and looked around, and realized what the facts he observed led to - evolution. After some rather contentious debate, other scientists came to the same conclusions. Years later, thousands of scientists recognize that evolution makes sense of the facts, whereas special creation does not. Some of these facts include the geological column and the fossils indexed to them, psuedogenes, broken genes, junk DNA, greater similarity correlating with shared ancestry, etc. etc.
So you have evolution emerging from the systematic observation of facts about the world, and the YEC approach coming from an assumption about how to interpret Genesis 1.
While science does not have anything to say about the existence of God, it does have things to say about things that have and have not happened in the natural world. When your confidence in God is tied to the accuracy of statements about the natural world contained in books of revelation, then science is in the uncomfortable position of “disproving” some possible interpretations of that revelation (Genesis can’t be both "true in a scientific sense" and teach that the world is 6,000 years old, for instance, if science is a reliable guide to nature).
Unfortunately for creationists, criticism of our evolution is not the same thing as defending the Genesis account of creation. It may be that mutation and natural selection are not the only forces acting on species to cause evolution. This just means that the theory will get better over time – that there is more to learn. While the theory of evolution will change and grow, there is no reason to expect that the evidence will suddenly start pointing to special creation, a global flood, and a young earth.
None of this rules out the possibility that God designed the universe, especially if He did it in some way that is beyond our detection – and in a way that also preserves the true random nature of the cosmos. This is a position that cannot be proved or disproved by science – two people look at the same facts, some see God, some see chance.
So faith and science two faith assumptions? Christians challenged to believe the Bible or believe science? I don’t think so. Do the findings of science challenge our beliefs? Of course. All Christians used to believe that the Bible taught geocentrism – today, YEC-ers argue strongly that the Bible teaches no such thing. The reason everyone agrees on this point is because scientists demonstrated a fact about the world (heliocentrism) that no one can successfully dispute. Like it or not, we have to test our interpretations of revelation against our real world experience. Science is a tool that magnifies and strengthens our ability to think accurately about our world. And that is all it does – but that is quite a lot.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
If science has nothing to say about God, then how does evolution allow Richard Dawkins to be an "intellectually fulfilled" atheist and why is KU (with my tax money) bringing him here just before the elections to promote his book tour of The God Delusion?
But as to the presuppositons of the scientific method, they go far deeper than you suggest; the uniformity of nature, the reliability of induction, the humans minds ability to discern cause and effect relationships, the reliability of our observations (often demonstrably wrong) and the faith that the things we don't understand about the "natural" world someday will be understood (ignoring that the more we learn the more we realize we DON'T know) and the provisionality of scientific theories.
And that is just for starters.
Evolution of course, has no power to allow or disallow anything - it is a theory. Latter in your post, you reach some sweeping conclusions about what folks will decide about the world as science discovers more. Dawkins is doing the same - reaching conclusions based on his view of the evidence. This is a good thing (and even better, you are free to disagree with him, unlike the reaction we are seeing from the religious right, who wants to censor opposing views).
Your tax dollars are going to encourage people to think about the issues. When we are challenged, when we are forced to reconsider our assumptions, when we have to consider things from a different perspective, when what we think has been established turns out to need reexamination - these are good things, and everyone benefits.
The purpose of public university is not to just tell you what you already know, and to censor them (I assume that is what is behind your comment about how your tax dollars are spent) unless they toe the line with your polical, religious and cultural preconceptions is not only impossible (too much diversity in our culture), but shortsighted. Go to the lectures, really listen, and then examine what you believe and why you believe it. The result? personal and intellectual growth, and I assume, a better articulation of your faith.
Post a Comment