Sunny Pathway

Thursday, May 14, 2009

Theories of Creation, a Matter of Faith

Today I’m going to address a topic on which I’m not well-informed—but one on which I have a strong opinion. Doesn’t sound promising, does it?

Let me share a bit of history. In 1981 I took an undergrad class in cell biology. During the semester, the professor attended a seminar conducted by a grand-daughter of Dr. Louis Leaky. My professor was impressed, and when he returned he announced that in ten years Darwinian evolution would be a proven fact. Now, he was a man I knew and respected, but I had to take issue. I told him I’d remind him of his statement in ten years.

I didn’t have the heart to say anything when I last saw him about three years ago. That would have been unfriendly.

What's happened in me is that I rarely think of the subject any more. But the May issue of Christianity Today ran an article on St. Augustine of Hippo and the Biblical account of creation. It appears the theory was a hot topic in the fourth and fifth century. Augustine wrestled with this very topic throughout his career. Why do I find this funny? Perhaps it’s that human nature is consistent—some things never change.

Augustine’s thoughts intrigued me. He believed God created the world in one instant or moment—but that this created world had embedded within it the capacity to change or develop—or evolve. He compared it to a seed which is complete—but which contains the blueprint for something seemingly different. In other words, various forms of life could emerge.

Augustine addressed the topic in part because he didn’t want the church to latch onto a secular theory that rejected the Biblical account. So he accepted the creation story literally—but identified concepts differently. And, as one might expect, his ideas came against those who did reject the Biblical story outright—Caesar’s personal physician, for example.

There were other tenets—also interesting--but I don’t want to suggest I am on Augustine's bandwagon, either. I know I don’t have a scientific mind, but I can think—sometimes rather clearly. Rather than put together an argument of sorts, I want to share a few observations.

Darwinian evolution—a theory that insists upon random selection—hasn’t been conclusively proven. In fact, according to material I’ve seen here and there, recent discoveries are problematic for scientists promoting Darwinian evolution. Yet those who believe the theory object adamantly to revisiting their conclusions. To support their ideas they come up with additional fictious possibilities based on their yet unproven theories.

People who compare today’s church with the church of Galileo’s time don’t want to acknowledge the change in the church’s influence. In reality, the church today is not regarded highly enough to impact scientific controversy. Any suggestions that the church is exerting undue influence doesn’t work. But there is a group which can police scientific discovery: the education system and its network. They have the power to suppress independent scientific data.

When someone discusses Darwinian evolution and tries to find out what another has to say on the subject, they rarely talk in terms of what a person thinks. It’s almost always turns into what the other person believes. Because beliefs are linked to faith, asking someone what they believe recognizes the tenuous nature of the subject. Accepting Darwinian evolution requires leaps of faith as broad or broader than accepting most of the Bible-based theories on creation.

I’m not interested in proving the world was created in six 24-hour days or, if you prefer, six extended periods of time—but one day I realized I could apply faith to the problem. The Bible says, without faith it is impossible to please him [God]. . . . (Heb. 11:6 ESV) If someone proves that God created the world, the possibility of a faith response is lost. We’re in no danger of someone proving anything about the earth’s creation. It’s beyond human understanding. Not that it shouldn’t be studied.

Accepting Biblical creation—believing God created— gives us one more opportunity to reach out and receive Him in faith. I think He experiences joy when we think things through, understand our options, and choose Him.

I am interested, however, in resisting Darwinian evolutionists who insist they have a corner on reality. They choose to believe the theories they prefer—just as I choose to believe the theories I prefer. Claims for anything else are silly because they haven’t proven random selection. It’s a theory.

A theory!

A theory with far-reaching implications. If Darwinian evolution is true, we lose the sacred nature of human life—of all life—and even of our planet or any other physical bit of creation.

Darwinian evolution is also a theory that’s lost its moorings. I suspect much of the current noise on the subject comes because they are running scared—trying to cover up their shaky foundation. And their insistence on pushing random selection is contrary to honest intellectual pursuits.

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

I have no doubt that when all is said and done scientist will prove that creation can't be proven!!! It must be accepted in faith... let's let them dig! I know more scientists that ARE christian than any other faith, or secular. Because when you dig deeper into cellular structure there is no explanation as to the 'quantum' of physics... :) nice topic!!

Nancy said...

It's good that you're thinking about the relationship between science and religion. I would encourage you to read widely on the subject. And thanks to the internet that's easier than ever. A good place to start would be the BioLogos site which takes both biology and Christianity very seriously and with a high degree of scholarly input. http://biologos.org/

I don't mean to sound rude or hostile when I offer this next suggestion. It is offered in a spirit of friendship and kindness. You have made a common mistake (folks just forget what we learned in biology class) in confusing the popular use of the term "theory" with what scientists mean when they us the same word. The same thing is true of "random". Randomness in science is a somewhat different concept than in popular usage. My suggestion is to visit your local library and refresh your memory about basic biology. Most libraries have good reliable resources on this topic. I'm always distressed when I encounter thoughtful people, who want to seriously and faithfully address these issues but have incomplete information. Blessings on your continued thinking and reflecting on this topic.

Solveig said...

Thanks for the comments from both Cindy and Nancy!

Cindy, I understand where you're coming from. I appreciate you.

Nancy, I know you have a scientific and medical background--and I enjoy your blog. You have much more to draw from that I do and I'm a bit overwhelmed by your addressing the issue here. Also flattered.

(Readers, Nancy's last entry concerns virusus. I took a brief look and plan to go back for a careful reading. With all the news on the flu, we need sound information on the subject.)

I don't want to sound rude, either, but feel I should say something. So, in response--as a quick response of the top of my head this morning, I looked up both "theory" and "random" in my dictionary. Both were interesting. I was surprised that the primary definition of "theory" referred to "systematically organized knowledge" that is then used to explain or predict. I'd assume this means collecting data and coming to a conclusion based on the material at hand. Now, I don't have your background but, if collecting data is important, it's also important to keep gaps in data clearly in mind. I don't reject the concept of evolution within a species. The evidence truly is conclusive. But to my knowledge, no one has ever discovered evidence of evolution from one species into another species. I would think this puts huge holes in Darwinian evolution. The data just doesn't support such a huge leap. (a leap of faith?)

I'm assuming the scientific definition of "random" includes the concept of probability. So, if random patterns indicate evolution in some areas, probability would indicate evolution in other areas. However, can the leap me made from evolution within a species to Darwinian evolution?

I so appreciate the benefits of science--I'm on a biologic drug developed by scientists--and I can't imagine what life would be like without it. At the same time, I think it's important for people outside the scientific community to address the unreasonableness of some--and I emphasize some--scientifc speculation. (Not to say speciulation isn't important. I know science advances on the basis of speculation--but to persist when evidence doesn't materialize?)

I also know people at various levels in the scientific field whom I admire and appreciate, even though they've bought into Darwinian evolution. Many confess they are Christians; I wouldn't think of challenging their confession.

Thanks again. I suppose you could punch holes in this over and over, but dialog is important.

Nancy said...

you mention the "unreasonableness" of some scientists and you are quite right. And it behoves Christians (and others) to be able to distinguish between when someone is talking accurately and appropriately about scientific results and when they are giving their opinion. Its crucial that we be able to make that distinction.

You are on the right track with your dictionaries definition of "theory". (I'm going to try really hard not to go on too long here...) In everyday useage, theory can be about a half a step away from idle speculation. But in science, a theory is based on lots of research and data and it is the result of the work of many people.
The other related topic, is that people often expect scientists to completely explain something and think that if there are any "gaps" in our knowledge the theory is untrustworthy. But in science we never expect to fully explain anything- we can't. Every answer creates more questions. We are interested in more fully explaining things. There will always be gaps in our theories and parts of any theory will always be in the process of being refined and even changed. The "holes" in evolutionary theory are small compared to the amount of supporting data. The ability to sequence genetic material has given us large amounts of confirming data.
Well, so much for brevity...

Solveig said...

Thanks for responding--and giving this lay person thoughtful consideration. I understand gaps--inductive reasoning, etc.--but can't buy into the gaps of Darwinian evolution. There are people who have given their life to finding the "missing" link--and are further away today than when they started. This could be explained by the huge amount of data collected--or can it? I'm just not there.

On the other hand, I appreciate your acknowledging "unreasonable" scientists. Thanks.