Evolution Weekend

This week for my Monday Morning Musings I wrote a little piece about Evolution Weekend (Feb 8-10) that celebrates Charles Darwin (I mean that the weekend, not my article, celebrates Darwin--just wanted to be clear on that). For that article, see First Church of Darwin in the Monday Musings page at www.sandpointchurchofchrist.com. Let me add some further comment and clarification to that article. By the way, next year is the 200th birthday of the birth of Darwin, and organizers are already planning celebrations and commemorations all over over the world. So expect the creation/ID/evolution debate to really heat up.

I made the statement in my article that the theory of evolution belongs more in the realm of religion than in the realm of science. In its fullest and purest form, the theory of evolution is an entirely naturalistic explanation for the origin of the universe, the origin of life and of humankind, and the origin of all the major groups of life. If one honestly and critically looks into the problems and presuppositions for the the evolutionary theory of origins, however, it is difficult to argue that there is not a level of faith involved. Granted, one can make "scientific" observations of the present and extrapolate those observations to the distant, unobservable past, but at what point does one cross from the realm of science (knowledge) into the realm of faith when making such extrapolations? For example, we can observe minor genetic changes in the plant and animal world, but extrapolating those to the major, even unimaginable, changes required to go from a reptile to a mammal requires a great deal of untestable faith. Or we can theorize how life might have arisen out of a primordial soup, but since such an event has never been observed even in laboratories, one can only accept it on faith. The same is true with the origin of the universe. No matter how many observations we make to fit theoretical scenarios, by its very nature any theory of origins can only be accepted on faith. By definition, "origins" only happened once, and that in the prehistoric, pre-human past. We can take present circumstantial evidence and formulate theories of how it might have occurred, but these are only theories. They can never be tested.

But perhaps more significantly, such theories are heavily dependent on one's presuppositions. The most religiously held (and faith-based) presupposition is that science demands that all explanations of origins be purely naturalistic. Any supernatural cause (i.e., God) is excluded at the outset as being "outside the realm of science." But doesn't this force you to a naturalistic conclusion even before you can consider an alternative? How is that scientific? Science is supposed to lead you wherever the evidence leads. But by excluding one possibility beforehand, you cannot follow the evidence to where it leads. This is not science. In fact, it is not even true faith, for faith is supposed to be based on evidence as well (cf. Heb 11.1). Rather, I would put it in the category of dogma. And as proof of that, just look at what happens to anyone in the academic world who tries to question the standing dogma. They will be branded as heretics, and if not burned at the stake, at least excommunicated. That's neither science, nor faith. But it might rightly be called "religion."

The comment below says posted by Randy Hohf, but actually was written by friend Dr. Robert Pierce. He emailed it to me and I posted it. Watch for a response soon.