There is a debate going on stirred up by the intelligent design proponents. It seems to me that some of the scientists and the creationists are talking past one another. The intelligent design people are asking the scientists to be unscientific. They want to say, "When you get to a mystery, like the mystery of the similarity of genes found in humans, mammals, worms and bacteria, couldn’t you just say that ‘God did it!’?" A scientist is compelled to continue asking the questions without surrendering to the mystery. I appreciate that. I will draw my own conclusions somewhere a long the way, without demanding that someone quit asking the observable questions. We are thankful for Copernicus and Galileo, who did not stop seeking the truth about the world. When I see the similarities in genes and embryos, I will see economy of Design rather than common ancestry through natural selection. My feelings won’t be hurt when some scientist says, "That’s unscientific!" I am not a scientist. I am a theologian!
I am also comfortable with evolutionary theory, at least in a macro sense. Things change over time. That is evolution, right? I think we should not ignore good evidence. We should be observant. We should ask questions. We would do well not to limit ourselves to our own disciplines, too. Theologians should be reading chemistry and biology, as well as philosophy and the Bible. What I am interested in is the truth. I think we can handle the truth. Virtue, it seems to me, demands that we have our eyes and hearts and minds open. This is the world that God has made, and it pours forth speech (Ps 19:1-4). We should listen. Paul Woodruff says, "The writer who is serious about virtue can’t stay behind the boundaries of a single academic discipline; the subject brings together poetry and philosophy and the history of ideas and puts them all to work on a huge live-wire of a question -- how we should live our lives." If the scientists or the creationists forget the point of it all, we should not.
Of course, you know, I believe that God created the heavens and the earth, that he created a moral agent out of mud.
2 comments:
I WAS LISTENING TO LIBERAL TALK RADIO ONE NIGHT RECENTLY. THE ANNOUNCER WAS RIDICULING GWB FOR TRYING TO GET INTELLIGENT DESIGN TAUGHT I SCHOOLS. HE USED THE FACT THAT DINOSAURS EXISTED TO PROVE EVOLUTION TO HIS AUDIENCE. THE CALLERS THAT WERE ABLE TO GET THROUGH ALL AGREED WITH HIM. I COULDNT GET THROUGH. ALL I WANTED TO SAY WAS THAT THE DINOSAURS DIDN'T EVOLVE, THEY DIED.
Naturalist scientists' argument that if you allow the possibility of miracles then you stifle science, is only used to support the naturalistic theories that only look for truth through natural processes.
Currently, secular science, is defined as the understanding of natural processes. Limiting the definition to only include natural processes preculdes the possibility of any other process. This in fact stifles finding where the truth really lies. If one does not allow the possibility for a designer of the universe without proving a designer does not exist then they are limiting their search for truth based on some personal subjective basis.
Those that allow for the possibility of natural processes and supernatural processes do not arbitrarily limit their realm for searching for truth. Excluding either without evidence for excluding one or the other is just bad science.
Post a Comment