The party is about to begin.
In a week or so, the trumpets will sound, heralding the start of 18 months of non-stop festivities in honor of Charles Darwin. July 1, 2008, is the 150th anniversary of the first announcement of his discovery of natural selection, the main driving force of evolution. Since 2009 is the 200th anniversary of Darwin's birth (Feb. 12), as well as being the 150th anniversary of the publication of his masterpiece, "On the Origin of Species" (Nov. 24), the extravaganza is set to continue until the end of next year. Get ready for Darwin hats, t-shirts, action figures, naturally selected fireworks and evolving chocolates. Oh, and lots of books and speeches.
But hold on. Does he deserve all this? He wasn't, after all, the first person to suggest that evolution happens. For example, his grandfather, Erasmus Darwin, speculated about it towards the end of the 18th century; at the beginning of the 19th, the great French naturalist Jean-Baptiste Lamarck made a strong case for it. Lamarck, however, failed to be generally persuasive because he didn't have a plausible mechanism -- he could see that evolution takes place, but he didn't know how. That had to wait until the discovery of natural selection.
The author goes on to explain just why Darwin, who wasn't the first to think of natural selection either, deserves the parties that will be held in his honor; and I'd tend to agree, for the most part.
As a Creationist, you'd think I'd have problems with Darwin's theories. Kinda, sort of. Call it riding the fence if you will. But here is the best way I can explain it:
I believe that God made the world and everything in it (I wasn't around during this time, so I really can't speak to the timeline or how long it took God to do all of this); I believe that He directly created the souls not only of the first two fully human creatures on Earth, but that He continues this act of direct creation of the souls of every human being in existence. In other words, the human body may have been formed by evolution (but not from monkeys or even "neanderthal" as in the stereotypical thought that enters everyone's mind when I said neanderthal), but the immortal soul of every human being is not something which developed naturally, or exists as a naturally occurring characteristic of the material existence of humans.
The real conflict between religion and science often comes about when science claims that the ability to demonstrate certain empirical truths automatically disproves the existence of the non-material. This is no less true for the various debates that have arisen about ideas based on Darwin's observations than it has been for other similar conflicts. Those followers of Darwin who say that evolution and natural selection prove that there is no God, as man no longer requires a Creator, or that there is no immortal soul, as such a thing could hardly have evolved and can't be empirically observed anyway, are stepping outside the bounds of science and into metaphysics, where by definition they have no business; the tools of empiricism are useless in the realm of the transcendent realities.
But the strict empiricist doesn't believe that there are transcendent realities. All is physical, all is observable, all is the result of brain chemistry or hormones or the twirl and dance of deoxyribonucleic acid. Love isn't a many-splendored thing, but the predictable and combined result of proximity, the observable qualities of the other that strike the observer's eye as desirable, and the activity of certain physical and chemical processes; beauty may not be in the eye of the beholder, but what does it matter so long as the proper hormonal response is achieved?
And hate is in the gut--literally--and crime located somewhere in the glandular systems, and free will is an illusion that we've evolved to believe in because otherwise the sheer randomness and preprogrammed nature of our choices would drive us to despair--or, at least, to whatever physical/chemical combination "despair" really is.
So for the empiricist, any talk of God being involved in the creation of the world, even if religious believers are quite willing to entertain the notion that it pleased God to set evolution in motion (provided we retain our beliefs about the soul, which the strictest empiricists don't believe in anyway) still isn't acceptable. For certain people whose beliefs in non-creation and the non-Creator are inextricably tied to their beliefs about science and about all of reality, this is not a compromise they can live with--it seems as though they must convert believers to their non-belief, so ardently do they insist that evolution proves that God is not.
It does no such thing, of course. And I can't help but wonder just what sort of biochemical impulses the strict empiricist-evolutionist blames for his unhappiness with the whole notion.
10 comments:
Wow, this post surprised me a bit, coming from you.
How so?
In my humanity, I'm always curious (worried) about how people view me so I am curious (worried) as to what you are actually surprised by?
...an interesting perspective, Brian.
Imagine, for a moment, that evolution in the Darwin sense is happening right now. I was surprised that you kinda-sorta suggested so. Scientists have proven this to be the case (esp. with certain bird studies where one a group of birds became isolated from the other half on an island that had different respective environments. Surprisingly quickly, two separate kinds of birds emerged from the single group, adapting to the life on each side of the island...)
What's frustrating for some scientists, I think, is that all this work they do under a strict set of scientific studies, reasoning, and consistency is slammed down by certain religious groups on the basis of "God Created, Period."
Imagine your life's work being thrown away in a single statement without consideration by the people who hold closer to their own beliefs and inventions than they do labor, trial, and error under very strict rules of *what constitutes science*. Wouldn't that spark a little resentment in some people toward a group? It's not the scientist that makes evolution *about God* -- it's the extreme religious that taunt, beg, and provoke otherwise quiet men and women to stand up and say, "enough."
And then the fanatics run back to their chapels saying, "Those stupid monkey lovers are just trying to take God out of the picture."
Unfortunately Gary, I cannot agree with you that the extreme religious have started all of this mess, and in no means am I looking to fight myself.
There is no doubt that humans adapt, over time, to their surroundings, to their enviornment, ecosystem, etc.. I don't need a study about birds to prove that. It helps and offers explanation, but why did it even have to happen? Different discussion, different day.
I'm really astounded by the fact that people are surprised by my comments in this post. I am sure if we poured over the blogging archives we all have, you'd see me making the same claims, just not as detailed as this month long endeavor of a post took me (I got lucky with the NYT article making the post relevant)
But there are just some things, that science will never prove. And to then throw it out as "Unobersvable, can't happen, period." is ridiculous.
Science doesn't have to prove everything, because it won't, it can't.
Ever
Period
I guess I always thought of you as being pretty conservative.
I'd still say I am very conservative. Creationism should be taught in Public Schools as a an alternative to the theory of Evolution, even as a theory in and of itself.
And I am highly skeptical of science, very much so. I think the field of science has proven the ability to prove whatever it wants.
And I was trying to focus more on that side of the discussion than evolution, but I, as always, appreciate the contributions and comments. It adds to the conversation and helps fledge out thought process and continue the discussion.
How does science demonstrate that it can prove whatever it wants? Is it because it "proves evolution" even though you know it hasn't? I don't know where you're coming from to dismiss science as propaganda.
This really does remind me of the political debates going around right now. As someone who conducts hundreds of political surveys for all parties, I've had somewhat of an epiphany about political alignments. Democrats, Republicans, Independents, and Libertarians are all the same. Do you realize that the passionate patriotism a Democrat has is identical to the passion of a Republican? Did you know that everyone has the same opinion about what is right and wrong -- what should be and what shouldn't be? Yet, somehow, we are convinced that "the other party" has got it all wrong.
Guess what. I conducted two different surveys last week. One was for registered Republicans. The other was for registered Democrats. The fifty questions on each were identical, except the names were changed. For example,
Republican so-and-so supports offshore drilling near Virginia Beach, and the Democrats are doing all they can to stop this technology and keep us dependent on foreign oil.
on the other survey:
Democratic Candidate so-and-so supports offshore drilling near Virginia Beach, and the Republicans are doing all they can to stop this technology and keep us dependent on foreign oil.
It's absolutely intriguing to hear one party rip the other party apart, and for all significant purposes, they are one and the same.
What's up with the illusion? It's in us to align and to create the concept of an enemy. After all, we can't stand strong if there's nothing to fight about -- even if the fight is over a party title alone.
Gary - My comment was going down the road of "Scientists have just proved X hooray! Fast forward sometime in the future, Science now says Y is awesome and X is bad hooray! Fast forwad, Science says Z is more awesome than Y or X, rock on! Then yet again, oh no, now they say X was the best all along and Y and Z will kill us all sooner than if we had just stuck to X all along...crap!"
I know, I know, still a very highly skeptical view of Science, but this is the same field of study that says I could trace my ancestory back to an ape, so, what do you expect?
Science on the whole isn't propaganda, but there are definite occasions and times it has been used as such. Just like Christianity, philosophy, and lots and lots of other field of study.
And to your other point, I'm not sure it's an illusion. In my discussions with people there seem to be some very distinct lines of seperation. Are you saying, we've got built in preprogrammed responses tailored to certain individuals once we find out the label they claim for themselves? And that those responses could even be opposite what we truly believe? And then, if an independent 3rd party polls us, without the other "side" present we truly give our responses?
No way can I buy that.
We may find common ground on somethings, but it isn't an across the board agreement.
I have no problem with the government tapping into my phone line to hear what I have to say, without a warrant too.
How many people agree with me on that statement?
I do not think there should be a Constitutional Amendment defining what marriage is.
How many people agree with me on that statement?
I still agree with the war in Iraq and we did not go to war under false pretenses.
How many people agree with me on that statement?
I think abortion is murder, in all of its forms, and there should be law that states it as such.
How many people agree with me on that statement?
I'm not trying to argue all of these points above, I'm just trying to add to the discussion and figure out what you are saying.
And I'd also like to further discuss the strict empiricist and dealing with transcendent realities. Science and metaphysics.
What if evolution was not viewed as a "strongest survies" (which it can not POSSIBLY be - I'll demonstrate in a second)but rather as the beautiful, mysterious, creative, adaptive, unpredictable, way that God's creative efforts have unfolded over millions of years?
While my newest son's grandma held him his new aunt, Lois, pondered about how incredibly dependant he was (as all baby's are). Her husband, my son's new uncle, Bill, added some questions about Darwinism evolution, and that brought them around to asking me (seeings how I am the religious guy holding the Master's in Theology).
Anywho - I said the above, and then added that I didn't believe that Darwin - strongest survive - theory, in essense, because of human babies.
They would die if left alone.
They are weak.
If born and left to themselves, they would die and our race would die off.
So, I touted the above as a possibilty of reconciling science with my faith (and the creation myth).
I sounded Rob Bell-like when I stated it, too - Corey, you would have, um, been, ah, p..proud of me...ahh.
Toby, in no way can I disagree with what you just said.
Except to say, sounding "Rob Bell-like" isn't the best aspiration to attain to.
HA!!!
Just kidding.
But, I will say I noticed the quick jabs and snippets "creation myth" "millions of years"
Actually, jabs is a bad word to use, but your "creation myth" comment did get my attention.
Can you explain?
I'm not trying to catch anyone in a trap, I already stated in the post, i wasn't around at Creation and have no idea how long it took or has taken or is taking, but to say "myth" did catch me...
Post a Comment