Thursday, February 14, 2008
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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
HAPPY BIRTHDAY CHUCK
Dr. R.N. Pierce
March 4th, 2008
Often the discussion of creation vs. evolution seems akin to two people speaking separate languages while engaged in a heated debate. Neither is able to understand a single word of the others ramblings but waits only for a pause inviting their own return to the podium. It is not an intellectual discussion in the sense that new perspectives are being sought, or that minds are open for change based on new knowledge.
With that as a prologue, let me first state that Randy Hohf is a good friend and, somewhat ironically perhaps, we have raised two fine young sons who are also friends and hockey teammates. They both possess an admirable sense of integrity, honest manners, and a solid moral compass. They will, no doubt, grow into well-adjusted adults positively active in their communities. One has been raised with the 'Bible' and the other - my son in case you hadn't guessed -with Darwin's 'Voyage of the HMS Beagle' as their beacons of light.
Randy's article on the 'The First Church of Darwin' (02/11/2008) raised my hackles and my blood pressure and led to this writing. Although it can be a never-ending discussion, I will limit myself to a few points, but first I shall give a brief history of my training and education which I believe gives some substance to my opinion.
I am a doctor and had to endure 10 years of higher education to assume that title. I have two science degrees from the University of Idaho; one in wildlife biology and the other in fisheries biology both completed before my veterinary medical degree was granted from Washington State University. All of this training necessitated a thorough dissection and comprehension of the 'Scientific Method' and Evolutionary Science. During veterinary medical school, we painstakingly tore apart -bit by bit - four different species of animals and a human cadaver (the fifth animal); thus, comparative anatomy is not simply a concept but is quite distinct in my mind - so much so that I can still smell it.
On the other side, I have completed (audio tapes) high level collage courses on 'The Historical Jesus', 'The Old Testament', The New Testament', and 'The Lost Gospels'. This is in addition to having read a multitude of books by many Christian authors including C.S. Lewis, Lee Strobel, Michael Wilkens, J.P. Moreland, and whoever it was that wrote 'Darwin's Black Box' (Randy gave me that one).
I certainly do not mean to pontificate but only to illustrate that I have spent years and great effort (did I mention money) to view the entire argument and hear both sides clearly. I know enough to realize that no one is likely to change their minds by reading one small article or hearing one short talk – so that is not my intent- but I abhor when facts become twisted or mis-represented to achieve a means rather than simply to honestly educate and discuss.
First please allow me to define what the 'theory' of evolution means. Notice I bracketed the word 'theory'. I am not going to describe evolutionary theory in detail but instead explain the use of a word. When a scientist uses the word 'theory' it can be in a very different context to the typical use of the word. For example, when a person says, “I have a theory about what happened to your keys,” it simply means that the person has thought of a possible explanation that might shed light on what happened to the missing keys. There may be 100 or 1000 other theories that could be brought forth as equally plausible to explain what happened to them. They fell from your pocket on the boat, you left them in the car, they are in the other pocket of your pants, etc... These are all different theories and only one of them, or maybe none of them, are actually true. This is the common understanding of the word. A scientist might call each of these a 'hypothesis'.
When a scientist uses the word 'Theory' it may be in an entirely different context. This is easily grasped by non-scientists when you remind them of Einstein's 'theory' of relativity, or gravitational 'theory'. In these cases, as with the 'theory' of evolution, the word implies something different. I know of no one who adamantly argues against gravitational theory and why is that? It is because 'theory' in this usage means simply that there is a gargantuan body of knowledge – including advanced mathematics, experimental and observational data – upon which this 'theory' firmly rests. The body of knowledge is so solid – at the present time – that no other explanation fits and thus it is actually a TRUTH (until proven otherwise). This describes perfectly the 'theory' of evolution. I would thus propose that we should call it 'Evolutionary Truth'.
Why would I say, “until proven otherwise”? I am sure many derived some pleasure in that statement because it implies that we really don't know anything for sure. This is actually the ultimate difference between science and faith. In science, we are always open to changing what we think of as truths. In faith-based religions we hold all the truths already and any intrusions upon them must be met with dogged defensiveness and attack.
Is there a possibility that some math geek in a lab at UW will uncover a new constant and dis-ravel Newton's theory of gravity and the orbiting of planets? It may be possible ,but it is incredibly unlikely and, if it happened, it would be greeted by scientists as a remarkable wonder – an exciting nuance. It would not be met with hard-headed stubbornness and cries of blasphemy. Scientists would love it and start re-calculating everything.
Opponents of evolution must understand that should someone discover ANYTHING that undermines the immense mountain of data upon which evolutionary 'truth' solidly rests, scientists will be the first to herald it's finding. A scientist who could 'scoop' the story would be catapulted to the top of his field in an instant. For Randy to insinuate that believing in evolution is a 'faith' is beyond preposterous. Since Darwin proposed his 'theory', not a shred of contradictory evidence has been found. Most of the Christian attacks attempt to exploit 'gaps' that exist in species evolution (where are the intermediates?) or to bog the novices mind with how complicated things are (how could an eye just happen?) and thus lead the unwary to the conclusion that everything HAD to be created. If these arguments were more than pipe smoke, then there would be hoards of scientists publishing papers that would rip Darwin to shreds. This has not happened.
I would suggest that the scientific method has been carefully constructed over the last five or more centuries by many of the greatest thinkers of our generations. Approximately 95% of the members of the Academy of Scientists believe in evolution and not in 'creation from the dust' by God. I am suspect of the other 5%. The scientific method has led directly to virtually all of our technological advancements as well as those theories we hold as truths.
Certainly, I have not changed anyone's mind but hopefully everyone at least understands that we do not believe in evolution because of any faith-based dogma – science is NOT a religion by any wild stretch of the imagination. Scientists by definition change their thinking and understanding with new information. Faith-based religions are static and firmly immobile in their thinking and generally remain there forever – rejoicing in that stance.
I never understood why evolution posed such a threat to the faith-based until Randy explained it to me on a long drive into Canada. I always just assumed that it would be easy for Christians to accept the data of evolution and simply back-up one step and say, “God created evolution as a method of change for the changing environments of the world.” I now see that this doesn't work for the faithful because immediately you have to admit we are closely related to the other animals (as grossly obvious in my comparative anatomy exploits) and thus were not 'created in God's image' but rather are simply one of many cousins. This crushes those who hold tightly onto a human-centric (I fear alienating readers with the word 'homo-centric') view of the world.
The last sentences of Randy's article clearly implies that Karl Marx, who held religion in disdain, was destined to be a murderer and a ruthless oppressor of his people due entirely to his lack of faith in God. This is an oft used attack which borders on snide and mean. Anyone with even 6th grade history background will understand that Christians and Muslims have been responsible for more torture, oppression, and genocide than any other groups in the last 2000 years. Have you heard of the Crusades or the Inquisition? In Hitler's Germany and in other European countries during World War II, the collection and murder of the Jews was made possible by many hundreds of years of Christian programing within the populace ('Hitlers Willing Executioners' by D.J. Goldhagen) against the Jews who murdered Christ. It is shallow, historically misleading, and inappropriate to imply that being Christian somehow makes the world a less murderous place. This argument is used quite often by the Religious Right and I assume believed by the less educated. Stalin was wrong and Hitler was wrong. Sadamm and Osama were wrong and sometimes our leaders have been wrong because it is simply wrong to murder, oppress, torture (usually), and invade (usually). These truths may be repeated in the Bible but all the rules of not sleeping with you brother's wife, not stealing your neighbors food, or murdering your fellow tribesmen have been around for as long as humans have lived in hunter-gatherer societies (that would be up until approximately 10,000 years ago when the first humans settled into other more specialized lifestyles such as farming). They are an obvious necessity for the stability of a social species – for the good of the survival of the whole.
Religion holds no key to morality or to social obligation. We don't need first-century writers (or 7th Century in the case of the Muslims – or 19th Century in the case of the Mormons) to guide us when our perspective is far more enlightened (or should be) then theirs could ever have been. Superstition and ignorance has fallen away somewhat but is still firmly clutched by those of faith (Jews, Christians, and Muslims are the majority). It is time to move on.
What our world needs is a 'Reason' based religion that defines universal moral laws and grounds us firmly in the world in which we live. We don't know what happens after we die and we should not pretend that we do. We know about the 'Big Bang' but we can not explain the very beginnings of life on Earth and we must continues to search and to wonder until we understand this too. In the meantime, we should work diligently to take care of our planet and our cousin species that we KNOW instill our life. Science may discover God; for there can be but one truth - not several that depend on where you were born. Science may also discover that there is no God but only the magnificent and totally improbable system of life we enjoy. This is enough for me and I rejoice each and every day. My son will also enjoy and embrace his Christian friend and share his compassion, generosity, and dedication to his fellow man – all of that while celebrating his evolution on this beautiful planet.
Nine times out of ten, the "theory" of gravity isn't referred to as a theory - it's referred to as Newton's LAW of gravitation. The same is said for the "laws" of thermodynamics.
There is a fine difference between scientific theory and law. Albert Einstein's "theory" of gravity is drastically different than Newton's Law of gravitation. Though Albert adopted many of the principles of gravitation and used them for his own theories.
For me, it still roots back to the most important problem any branch of science has; No branch of science can answer the two most sought after questions in human history - "What is the meaning of life", and "What happens when we die". Though, curiously, we have been given a book - rich in historical proof, backed up scientifically, and empirically perfect that answers both questions.
-Mikael Skillings
Post a Comment