Science and a faith in Jesus, according to the New Atheists, are absolutely incompatible. This is the bell that Professor’s Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett are slamming. The New Atheists, armed with a version of Darwinian Theory, aim at dismantling and destroying humanities belief in any sort of god!
Over the last six posts, I have endeavoured to demonstrate that the claims of the New Atheists are not only false, but the ways in which these men argue their case is misleading and unfaithful. Additionally, the evidence provided in the past six posts (see Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5 and Part 6) has articulated the strong compatibility of Science and a faith in Jesus.
Today, after a great deal of research, I will strive to tackle the issue of “Evolution”. I will confess that I am by no means an expert on this matter, both scientifically and theologically. However, I do believe that I have a fairly good grasp on both, enough to write an article on the matter (please correct me in the comment section if you feel I am incorrect in any way). Additionally, I will state, at the time of publishing, that I have not placed my foot in the Creationist, Intelligent Design or BioLogos camp (I will define these terms in this article). I guess, you could call this article an informal discussion.
Evolution by natural selection
Evolution by means of natural selection is a theory developed by the late Charles Darwin. It was and is considered a major breakthrough in the field of biology, due to the theories ability at defining the reasons for the rich diversity of life found on earth. This theory has been received with a mix reception. For most atheists see this theory as an end to the belief in God. Alternatively, some Christians see this theory as an attack on the teachings of the scriptures. However, not all Christians feel this way as some Christians subscribe to Darwinian Theory (see Part 1, Part 2 and Part 4).
For the sake of this argument, I will break evolution into two categories, microevolution and macroevolution. It has been proven that life on earth is evolving but to what extent. Basically all life has the ability to adapt to its environment. This is called microevolution. Additionally, the principles of microevolution are then applied to what’s called macroevolution, which is the understanding that over long periods of time, life can adapt and evolve into a new species (speciation). According to most leading Christian Scientists, there is an overwhelming amount of evidence for macroevolution.
Life, according to this theory began a couple of billions of years ago. It appeared as one replicating cell, which over a great deal of time, evolved into different forms of life. According to the biology experts, humans are related to modern day Chimpanzees, as we share a common ancestor with them, which is the result of thousands of years of evolution.
What about how the bible describes Creation in Genesis?
The first thing we need to ask ourselves when reading Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 is what are the main point / s of this text? Is this text detailing the mechanisms, processes and duration by which God created the world or is it addressing other issues? According to Longman and Dillard (2006), the text is not at all concerned with the process of creation, but rather, it is describing how God is the sole cause behind the creation of the universe and humankind. Additionally, they argue that Genesis 1 and 2 demonstrates how humanity is dependent on God and how God created everything from nothing, which the theologians term creation ex nihilo.
Both Longman and Dillard (2006) and Dickson (see Part 4) emphasis how we must read Genesis 1 and 2 in its historical context and further analysis of this will reveal the apologetic nature of the text (for more on Genesis’ interaction with Enuma Elish, see Part 4). This view is echoed by a great many Christian theologians!
How do Christians believe God created the life?
There are currently three schools of thought amongst Christians today about creation. These are the Creationists, Intelligent Designers and BioLogists. Simply put:
• Creationists view Genesis 1 as detailing the order, processes and duration God used to create the world. Some creationists would insist on a young earth theory, generally ranging between 6 000 to 10 000 years old (see Answers in Genesis for more).
• Intelligent Designers (not limited to Christianity) holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection (see Explaining the Science behind Intelligent Design for more).
• BioLogos, also known as Theistic Evolution (not limited to Christianity), holds that God used Evolution by natural selection as the mechanism to create life on earth. BioLogists will insist that natural selection is not unguided, but that God was behind this process (see The BioLogos Forum for more).
There seems at times, to me at least, to be a slight overlap between Intelligent Design and BioLogos. Check out the links for more information as these descriptions are very brief and simple.
I think in light of the evidence, Evolution by natural selection does not pose a threat to Christianity or the Doctrine of Creation, as the New Atheists would put it. Scientists like Francis Collins and Alister McGrath, both BioLogists, are emphatic in pointing out that through this science, we can see the hand of God. Either way, God is sovereign over the world, his word will last forever and science will continue to show humanity the processes and mechanisms by which God achieved his creative works (Isaiah 40:8; Romans 1:19-21).
The absolute lynch pin for me and many others is the resurrection of Jesus. Professor Simon Conway Morris, a Christian, a Palaeontologist and a BioLogist, explains how his faith rests in the resurrection of his Lord Jesus (see Real Scientist Real Faith). The evidence pointing towards the resurrection is overwhelming and those who dare point to the contrary are left short.
Jesus, who is God the Son, came and lived a sinless life and died a sinner’s death on a Roman cross. He did this to offer those who put their trust in him, new and eternal life (John 3:16-17; Ephesians 2:8-10). I encourage you to not believe everything you hear but to investigate for yourself the truth. The evidence pointing to Jesus as the eternal God, resurrected Messiah and King of the Universe is overwhelming. As Jesus said, search and you will find (Luke 11:9).
3 comments:
I wonder if Dawkins and Dennett realize that science is equally incompatible with faith in evolution, atheism, literal imaginary time, multiverse theory, panspermia and anthropic principle?
Rather interesting comment as I was watching a clip on Dawkins theory for the beginning of life on earth i.e. panspermia. I will post more on this topic in the coming weeks!
Could you clarify what you mean by science being incompatible with atheism?
In other words, true science is based on the scientific method - empirical observation, formulation of a hypothesis based on what's observed, experimentation in a controlled environment, multiple iterations of testing, concrete data, and the rules of logic. Singularities in history must be dealt with evidentially because you can't go back and observe something like the big bang or the origin of life multiple times, make observations, record data, etc. And there is always danger in making any assumptions when trying to directly extrapolate what is scientific truth and what is not. This being the case, it's disingenuous when atheists or individuals in the scientific community to point to their own areas of faith which cannot be tested objectively and call those areas of faith "scientific" while pointing towards other beliefs and calling those "mythic."
Dawkin's devotion to panspermia is very telling. He has faith that if we did find life in meteors or on other planetary bodies, it would be evidence of a previous, god-like race which wafted the seeds of life across the cosmos; he believes this because the chances that intelligent life formed randomly on earth are problematic. He recognizes the possibility that the way the universe is set up and the existence of life both point towards an intelligent explanation. If he were truly being scientific, he wouldn't be biased towards any one theory regarding this and would remain completely open minded. He would also recognize that beliefs and convictions regarding any matter that cannot be objectively tested or directly extrapolated fall within the realm of philosophy, not of science.
On a side note, most atheists and liberal scientists object to the possibility of the classic concept of God based on the logic that there is more than one idea about what God is like, and some of these ideas are mutually exclusive and couldn't be true concurrently, so therefore none of the ideas is true. This is a classic case of the logic fallacy, "argumentum ad logicam"; assuming that something is false simply because a single proof or argument offered on its behalf has been proven false.
Post a Comment