Yesterday we finished off a discussion of John H. Walton's fascinating look at The Lost World of Genesis One. In the discussion of scientific explanations of origins in proposition 16, p. 136 Walton draws an analogy (He uses a few examples, I am going to paraphrase a bit to use only one example).
We believe that God controls the weather, yet we do not denounce meteorologists who produce their weather maps day to day based on the predictability of natural cause and effect processes. Can evolution be thought of in similar terms?
It would be unacceptable to adopt an evolutionary view without God. But it would likewise be unacceptable to adopt ... meteorology as [a process] without God. The fact that ... meteorology [does] not identify God's role, or that many ... meteorologists do not believe God has a role makes no difference. We can accept the results of ...meteorology (regardless of the beliefs of the scientists) as processes we believe describe in part God's way of working. ... Why should our response to evolution be any different?
I would like to pose a few questions today as a wrap on Walton's book - and as a lead in to future posts on the questions of science and faith or intellectual integrity and how it melds with the Christian faith.
Why is an evolutionary explanation for the development of life a concern - but predictability in weather and an underlying assumption of naturalism in the description of weather is not a concern?
Why are intelligent design or
the suggestion that the Cambrian explosion undermines Darwinian
evolution appealing ideas? What does it achieve to cast doubt on
evolutionary biology?
Why don't we try to cast doubt on current theories of weather based on the assumption of naturalism, or organize campaigns to force our public schools to offer the theological alternative of God's role in the discussion of weather and meteorology?
Why should our schools specifically teach the cutting edge questions that pose "problems" in evolutionary theory - but not in any other science? (After all the entry level teaching of any science in high school brushes a myriad of complications under the rug - as does much of the intro undergraduate curriculum for that matter.)
What do you think?
If you wish to contact me directly you may do so at rjs4mail [at] att.net.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Paul was not taking Genesis 100% "literally." If he was, he would have said something like "sin came through one man and one woman." He is making a comparison and being flexible with Genesis 3 in order to "make it fit." That's a big and often overlooked reason why I think it is correct to say Paul was "treating" Adam as historical. Even if Paul thought Adam "was" historical (and I think he probably did), that's not the issue in Romans 5. The Jonah example is another good and often overlooked analogy.
If the forces of nature are sometimes "controlled" by evil forces, as in the storm on the Sea of Galilee, why not evolutionary events as well? If natural disasters are part of the fallen-ness of this world, why wouldn't we consider that perhaps not everything in evolution happened by God's perfect will and specific control? Personally, I find it hard to see God's hand in evolution or in weather. Can he intervene in either one? Of course. Can he redeem the broken creation beyond how it has evolved? That's my hope.
pds #33,
You said:
I don't see why we should presume a natural explanation when there is no plausible one proposed. That is not good science. That looks like "naturalism of the gaps."
This is an interesting point and I may err on this side on occasion. There are at least a couple of reasons for this I expect. One is the number of times I or we have been burned by assuming no "natural" explanation. Plausible explanation is a time located concept. No plausible explanation today does not mean no plausible explanation next decade. So I am wary, especially about things like Cambrian explosion.
Also in the practice of science in general I don't know how one can proceed without assuming an essentially natural explanation, having faith in the rational creation of God.
But I can come up with an example where your point is well taken. Consider moral law or the universal human search for God, something transcending ourselves. Many people have proposed "natural" explanations for these features of our being. Dawkins devotes chapters to this.
But it is also plausible that we have developed moral law and a desire for God through the external stimulus of His interaction with his creation. He has shaped and formed us and continues to do so through interaction, stimulus, and relationship. Evolution may have been the mechanism that formed us but it did so in a landscape where God is and was active and this determined the outcome. (He could have created moral law in us full formed by direct fiat as he could have created us from dust full formed. But the evidence suggests that he did not.)
So if naturalism is default, a natural explanation wins. But as a Christian I think that the second is a better explanation of how we got to be what we are today. To eliminate this from consideration simply because it invokes the existence of God would be to start off on the wrong track from the beginning.
Just a few thoughts.
That's a good summary RJS.
If a psychopath uses science or religion for political means, that shouldn't imply that science or religion caused it. One can use a butterknife to spread peanutbutter all over the place or stab someone in the neck but it's not the knife's fault. An obvious concern though is what kind of culture allows an Inquisition or a Holocaust? For example, earlier detection of Down syndrome means that a mother can choose to abort the fetus at an earlier stage of life, which is permitted in more states. Why? Because having an extra chromosome is a terrible sin? No, for mom's convenience. How is this different than the sacrifice of babies to propitiate the gods? Same consequence, different cultures, same deviltry.
Or it can mean that the parents have longer to prepare for the birth of their bundle of joy.
Evolution isn't just about trying to "explain things that happened in the past." It pulls together many sciences into a coherent framework that doesn't depend on deus ex machina to work. The Doppler shift of light from distant galaxies indicates an age of the universe much longer than 5600, 10,000, or whatever years (pick your Creation theory-of-choice). Fossilized progression of species explains a lot more than that they were really deposited during a prehistoric flood. I've even heard that Satan put fossils there to lead us stupids astray. Trust me: Satan can do a lot more harm working through politicians than trying to dupe the masses with fake fossils.
RJS #48
Very helpful comment. I agree with your comments on the moral law.
This gets at a critical point:
"Also in the practice of science in general I don't know how one can proceed without assuming an essentially natural explanation, having faith in the rational creation of God."
A scientist does not have to "assume" anything, but only look for a natural explanation. But that is a difficult mental task. It seems like a scientist has to wear 2 hats. Wearing the scientist hat, you passionately look for a natural explanation. Wearing the philosopher's hat or the ordinary person hat, you have to step back, look at all the evidence, scientific, biblical, philosophical, etc. and ask "what is true?, what really happened?, Was it natural or supernatural? How certain can we be?" It seems likely that the scientist hat will sometimes make you put your thumb on the scale in favor of the best natural explanation, even it isn't strongly supported.
I can think of other reasons why the thumb may lie heavy on the scale, but no time to get into them now. Not sure anyone is still reading this thread.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.