Archive for November, 2008
Darwin and Church History, Part 3
Nov 19th
As promised, I am offering up some answers to the questions I posed earlier.
- Must one choose between young-earth creationism and an atheistic interpretation of evolution by natural selection? Is there a middle ground?
I feel I have answered this question in my previous post.
- Is your view consistent with as-yet-undiscovered scientific facts? In other words, is your argument based on a current unknown remaining unknown?
Because my response to question 1 incorporates science and human reason, I do think my viewpoint accounts for new discoveries. In this, I find myself tending to the views of Augustine and Spurgeon. Both were of the opinion that Scripture must be interpreted in light of human knowledge. By this, I mean that if some discovery is not compatible with an interpretation of Scripture, the interpretation is flawed, not Scripture. I do not think this view removes the role of divine revelation or the existence of miracles.
- Supposing that the modern understanding of evolution is true, life, even sentient life, may have developed some other place in the universe. How does your theology handle this possibility?
This is a hard question. In included it because it was asked in one of my sources for my paper, and I consider it to be a serious challenge. I do not think that life (bacteria, plants, furry woodland creatures, etc.) offer any serious challenge to Christian teachings but sentient life does. There is no evidence of sentient life (or any life, for that matter) in the universe apart from that found on Earth, and my faith requires that I say that sentient life on Earth is unique. I would struggle greatly if sentient alien life is ever found.
- What is the definition of science?
From Wikipedia:
Science is the effort to discover, and increase human understanding of how the physical world works. Through controlled methods, scientists use observable physical evidence of natural phenomenato collect data, and analyze this information to explain what and how things work. Such methods include experimentation that tries to simulate natural phenomena under controlled conditions and thought experiments.
I think the important thing is to remember that scientists (not science) can very easily stray towards making philosophical claims about the world. These claims are not science and should not be accepted as such.
- What is to be done about the science upon which evolution is based (chiefly geology and paleontology)?
Keep the science and ignore the philosophizing. My faith does not require a young Earth to hold together, so I see not big conflicts with my faith and these foundational sciences.
- How does your viewpoint account for the problem of evil in the world?
Christianity assigns blame for evil and the decay of creation to human disobedience to God. Unfortunately, this view can raise additional hard questions that, at best, have uncomfortable answers. Although a difficult position to hold at times, I too will explain evil in the world as the result of human disobedience to God. I don’t have answers to all the questions this perspective raises, and in such cases, I will freely say, “I don’t know.”
Darwin and Church History, part 2
Nov 5th
Charles Darwin’s ideas presented the church one of its greatest challenges. With his publication of Origin of Species in 1859, Darwin completed the Scientific Revolution begun by Copernicus and firmly divided science and theology in the Western world. The church’s response to this challenge has varied—liberals have changed the very meaning of Christianity and conservatives have all but rejected the advances of science. However, I do think there is a middle ground where one can both accept scientific truths and hold to orthodox Christian theology.
The most liberal view I have come across claims that the evolutionary process of nature itself reconciles us with God. In this view, the human mind, developed from lesser to greater to greater still, is the means to know God. As our mind developed from lesser species, our ability to comprehend God has similarly grown. This process will continue on as the human species continues to evolve and adapt.
The problem with this liberal view is that it completely negates the need for the Incarnation. This view focuses on higher moral values and has little need for sin or redemption (Bowler 166). Other views have claimed the Incarnation is the culmination of the entire process of nature, but again, the focus is on nature and natural processes as the means of spiritual renewal. These liberal viewpoints significantly depart from Christian orthodoxy on several important points.
On the other end of the spectrum, strict conservatives, often known as fundamentalists, embrace biblical literalism and treat the word therein as accurate scientific and historical truth. In the fundamentalist view, God has preserved Scripture as inerrant and a single departure from the clear meaning of the text erodes the very foundation upon which Christianity is built. If Genesis cannot be trusted as being true, how can we accept any part of Scripture as true?
The conservative viewpoint has trouble reconciling the clear meaning of conflicting passages in Scripture (from two Creation stories to what day Jesus was crucified) and understanding other problematic verses (pi = 3 from I Kings 7:23-26). Additionally, the fundamentalist perspective tends to limit scientific research and advancement in areas deemed sacred or unknowable. A fundamentalist view leads to a harsh, legalistic view of Christianity that ends up doing more harm to the Kingdom of God that good.
Both the liberal and fundamentalist views have merit, however. The liberal view encourages human progress and greater knowledge of our world. The fundamentalist view reminds us of the sacredness of Scripture and the need for a saving God.
Both sides’ advocates truly believe their side is correct, so any attempt to find a balance can be easily attacked by both camps. Nevertheless, I will be brave and press on.
A bit of housekeeping first: To find a Christian response to Darwinian evolution, one must recognize certain basic assumptions. One, every perspective in this debate is colored by context (Mike Stroope has some great thoughts on this topic). To remain civil, we must try to take other perspectives into consideration. Two, humanity has been struggling to reconcile theology and natural knowledge for millennia. Any conclusions we may draw will not end the debate.
Likewise, I refer to those that follow the strict conservative view as fundamentalists. This is not meant to be a derogatory term. I use it to differentiate from other, more moderate, conservative viewpoints and because these views rose to prominence as part of the fundamentalist movement of the 1920s.
Finally, to properly respond to Darwin, we must understand his ideas. The theory of evolution by means of natural selection was fist presented by Darwin in Origin of Species and has been further developed over the last one hundred fifty years. Evolution simply states that the vast diversity of life can be explained by small changes over time. Natural selection claims the evolutionary changes are the result of environmental pressures that “select” for certain attributes beneficial for the survival of an individual of group. It is an unguided process with no outside influence—it is random and has no final purpose.
As an example, consider a population of Jabberwocks. Suppose some members of the group develop a mutation that allows them to hide from their predators slightly more effectively than their peers. These Jabberwocks will be more likely to produce more offspring, and soon the entire colony of Jabberwocks will have acquired the helpful mutation. Similarly, if two populations of Jabberwocks are genetically separated (by a mountain range or large body of water, for example), each population will continue to develop their own unique characteristics. These characteristics may lead to an inability to mate and produce fertile young Jabberwocks; two new species are created from the one common ancestor.
Often, the theory of evolution is criticized because it is “just a theory.” A theory is just a guess, right? Not according to the National Academy of Sciences:
In everyday usage, “theory” often refers to a hunch or a speculation. When people say, “I have a theory about why that happened,” they are often drawing a conclusion based on fragmentary or inconclusive evidence. The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence.
So the theory of evolution is not just a vague idea about life. It is a well-established and well-researched explanation of the likely causes of the variation of life in the world around us.
“But wait,” you say. “That’s not good science. It’s not really science at all. We can’t go back in time and watch it happen, and we can’t duplicate evolution in a lab. The best you can hope for is to see small variation within a single species, but we certainly can’t see one species change into another.”
Like a courtroom trial, though, periodic observational evidence, as scientists have for evolution, is sufficient to provide a convincing explanation for past events. One may surmise a likely sequence of events based on observed evidence. If new evidence comes to light, however, the conclusion may be drastically altered. Evidence for evolution is abundant. For a high-level overview for the evidence of evolution see evolution.berkeley.edu or talkorigins.org. One specific study completed this year shows the evolution of a complex trait not generally considered a characteristic of the original species. Many other sites can provide similar information.
The observed evidence of evolution does not preclude the existence of God, nor does it negate the role of theology in our lives. Science is concerned with natural explanations of the natural world. The Christian God, by definition, is not of this world. Science cannot comment on the existence or non-existence of God. The absence of observed evidence does not conflict with a God that is essentially “other.” Fundamentally, science and theology are concerned with two separate parts of human life: science can answer the questions of how or what and theology gives meaning to answers.
It is possible for science and theology to coexist. Science cannot confirm religious belief, but it can confirm or deny facts about religious belief. Likewise, religion can judge science by guiding the direction of study or commenting on the meaning of scientific truths (Sweet 225-227).
In my opinion, science and theology go together like architecture and aesthetics. Solid architecture does not mean a structure is beautiful; likewise, a structure’s aesthetic appeal does speak to its structural soundness. One may admire the architectural principles of a building or see order in its aesthetic properties, but great structures require attention to both architectural and aesthetic principles. Similarly, individuals must incorporate scientific principles and religious truth to determine meaning and purpose in life.
Darwin Bibliography (pdf): bibliography for my research on the paper I recently wrote on a similar topic
Darwin paper (pdf): a paper I recently wrote that started this whole discussion
Stay tuned for more. I’ve been accused of always sitting on the fence, so I’ll try to follow up with more assertive statements about how science and theology can work together.