I think this will be the last rambling on evolution before starting on the actual text itself. I will look at where all this leaves us.
Evolution can be split into two broad categories: micro and macro evolution. Micro-evolution is to do with the development within species and occasionally of new species. This can be observed in nature, and some creationists are perfectly happy to accept this, it really isn't a problem. Macro-evolution is about how radical changes took place, and this is where the problems lie.
I do not believe that evolution as a scientific attempt to try and explain the process of how lifeforms developed (in a physical and biochemical sense) is against the Bible. In fact it is perfectly reasonable thing to do. In Genesis God gave Adam the task of naming the animals, I take this as God giving man permission to seek to explore and explain the world in a scientific sense. In doing this, we need to recognise the enormity of what we are trying to do, which is to explain the development of every lifeform. Therefore a little humility and caution is in order. If you think you have explained the whole of life then just remember we have enough problems explaining a dripping tap (an example of turbulence, and turbulence is a nightmare, but a very interesting one), so you might just have got some things not quite right, or there may be a few gaps.
This last point also cuts both ways. Sometimes creationists take great delight in finding a hole in some aspect of evolutionary theory, or a gap/error in the fossil record. Well what a surprise! The theory doesn't quite work perfectly, it still has much work to be done, and may even be wrong. But some imperfections do not prove that it is complete nonsense.
A believe that Christians should work in the field of evolution, and help to ensure that the science is done properly. Equally, if there is proper evidence that fits better with a creationist point of view, then it should be allowed to be presented fairly.
Let me close by saying this. Science does NOT disprove the Bible, it does NOT disprove God. Anyone who says this is being completely unscientific. We need to focus on the right battle ground, and the 6-day v billions of years is not the right one, nor is he one over whether God uses evolution as part of the process of creation (maybe He did, meybe He didn't). We should engage in battle when evolution becomes a religion, like that espoused by Richard Dawkins.
Postscript
One further example of "punk science" that you regularly hear on the news. About two or three times a year you will hear reports on the news that scientists have found evidence for life on other planets., and it will be said that "since there are so many billions of starts, galaxies, solar systems and planets some of them are bound to support life". This is utterly unscientific. We have absolutely no idea what the probability of life forming is (even accepting that this is a sensible way to look at it), except that it is extremely small, and until we know this probability, or have a lower bound on its value, then we have no idea how many planets there need to be in order for it to be more likely than not that life exists elsewhere.
Evolution can be split into two broad categories: micro and macro evolution. Micro-evolution is to do with the development within species and occasionally of new species. This can be observed in nature, and some creationists are perfectly happy to accept this, it really isn't a problem. Macro-evolution is about how radical changes took place, and this is where the problems lie.
I do not believe that evolution as a scientific attempt to try and explain the process of how lifeforms developed (in a physical and biochemical sense) is against the Bible. In fact it is perfectly reasonable thing to do. In Genesis God gave Adam the task of naming the animals, I take this as God giving man permission to seek to explore and explain the world in a scientific sense. In doing this, we need to recognise the enormity of what we are trying to do, which is to explain the development of every lifeform. Therefore a little humility and caution is in order. If you think you have explained the whole of life then just remember we have enough problems explaining a dripping tap (an example of turbulence, and turbulence is a nightmare, but a very interesting one), so you might just have got some things not quite right, or there may be a few gaps.
This last point also cuts both ways. Sometimes creationists take great delight in finding a hole in some aspect of evolutionary theory, or a gap/error in the fossil record. Well what a surprise! The theory doesn't quite work perfectly, it still has much work to be done, and may even be wrong. But some imperfections do not prove that it is complete nonsense.
A believe that Christians should work in the field of evolution, and help to ensure that the science is done properly. Equally, if there is proper evidence that fits better with a creationist point of view, then it should be allowed to be presented fairly.
Let me close by saying this. Science does NOT disprove the Bible, it does NOT disprove God. Anyone who says this is being completely unscientific. We need to focus on the right battle ground, and the 6-day v billions of years is not the right one, nor is he one over whether God uses evolution as part of the process of creation (maybe He did, meybe He didn't). We should engage in battle when evolution becomes a religion, like that espoused by Richard Dawkins.
Postscript
One further example of "punk science" that you regularly hear on the news. About two or three times a year you will hear reports on the news that scientists have found evidence for life on other planets., and it will be said that "since there are so many billions of starts, galaxies, solar systems and planets some of them are bound to support life". This is utterly unscientific. We have absolutely no idea what the probability of life forming is (even accepting that this is a sensible way to look at it), except that it is extremely small, and until we know this probability, or have a lower bound on its value, then we have no idea how many planets there need to be in order for it to be more likely than not that life exists elsewhere.
No comments:
Post a Comment