https://barryhisblog.blogspot.com/p/evolution-its-acceptance-amongs.html
You could forgive little Jack Rabbit for thinking that trucks have got it in for him. Why else would they bowl down the road, threatening to squish him? Of course, the truth is that the truck driver is only intent on delivering his load, and the occasional squished rabbit is an unfortunate side effect.
Some say that evolution was "invented" as an atheistic attack on God and God-belief. In this essay, I aim to explain that this is not the case, and that science is not intent on destroying faith. It is not intrinsically atheistic. It is merely intent on delivering knowledge. Truth-contradictory beliefs are collateral damage. Road kill.
Long before Darwin and Wallace presented their theory of evolution, geology had progressed to the point that a recent global flood was recognised as being an unworkable explanation for the geological column, and "faunal succession", the sequence of differing life forms in the geological strata was accepted. These were taught in mostly British universities by men of the cloth. What was missing was how and why the forms of living things changed over time. People who say that "deep time" was invented in order to allow evolution to work are mistaken - or misled. "Deep time", and the fact of life changing over time came first.
Enter Darwin and Wallace, who almost simultaneously came up with the idea that the reason why life changes over generations was due to the differential reproductive performance provided by undirected heritable variations. It was Mendel, an Augustinian friar and abbot, who pointed the way to the nature of the things that provide these variations - genes.
Darwin stated that he was not an atheist, but an agnostic who stopped church attendance. It appears that his abandonment of formal religious practices was largely caused by his agonising grief over the suffering and passing away of his most beloved little daughter, Annie.
Here is a section from Wikipedia on Darwin's religious views. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin#Religious_views
Wallace, who was attracted to spiritual beliefs, disagreed with Darwin somewhat about the causes and "direction" of variation, but they both agreed on the effects of natural selection. Wallace was no atheist either. He was not motivated by atheism.
Regarding Darwin's motivation for his studies, a strong case can be made for him being motivated by his own extended family's cause, the abolition of slavery. https://www.amazon.com/Darwins-Sacred-Cause-Slavery-Evolution-ebook/dp/B00PF1PX88/
Moving on to Evolution and Christianity.
Wikipedia lists some 30 currently living (at the time of writing) prominent scientists who work in biological and biomedical sciences who are Christians. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christians_in_science_and_technology#Currently_living. While a very small minority reject evolutionary science (we used to call them cranks), the majority do not, and many have contributed to it. This is not an argument from authority, but rather an argument to say that Christianity and science are not necessarily at odds, and the best people to demonstrate this are leading scientific "evolutionist" Christians.
One scientist not on the list is Graeme Finlay, a world-recognized expert in genetic markers that put evolution beyond any reasonable doubt. This book of his is highly recommended. https://www.amazon.com/Human-Evolution-Graeme-Finlay-ebook/dp/B00E99YKSQ/ Finlay is a Christian preacher.
I've concentrated on Christians who are most closely involved in biological science, and most prominent in evolutionary studies. There are many more Christians and theists of other stripes, both scientists and lay people, who are accepting of evolution. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acceptance_of_evolution_by_religious_groups The idea that you cannot be a theist and an "evolutionist" is a lie. Even atheists fall for perpetuating it sometimes. It is a lie put about, not by all believers, but only by creationists.
Barry, I concur "... that Christianity and science are not necessarily at odds..." but would differ with theistic evolutionists. However one chooses to arrive at how the world came into being, they are beliefs. No human was there to witness the events. Any and all theories are just that, theories or presuppositions, a premise. Where does one go for truth? There has to be a source or foundation for truth in which to build. Personally, the One who stated "I am the way, the truth, and the life" (John 14:6) is the basis of building upon everything that exists within me; heart, mind, and soul.
ReplyDeleteIn Genesis, it is recorded that God spoke and it came into being. Theistic evolutionists take creation out of the hands of the Creator using human reason to understand that it must have taken long periods of time to bring about all that exists. It is an attempt to take creationists and evolutionists by the hand and reconcile them using arguments from both. Regardless of beliefs, whether it emerges from creationists, evolutionists, or theistic evolutionists, it is all interpretationally based on the physical evidences we now have expounded on either historically and/or observationally. The question remains as Pontius Pilate asked, "What is truth?" ~ Judy
Judy, we are here to witness the evidence that the events left behind. If there is a God, and he is not a liar and a deceiver, we can trust the physical evidence. It cannot lie, whereas humans can be mistaken, especially when they do not have access to all the relevant evidence. They can also, unfortunately, just make things up and even lie. Galileo said, "I do not feel compelled to believe in a God who gave us sense and reason, only to forego their use. Christians HAVE found ways to reconcile their Christianity with what we know about the natural world, and although I am an atheist, I commend them and have no quarrel with them.
DeleteIt's only recently that evolution has been set back by the creationists, after evolution was broadly explained by Darwin and Wallace. Most Christians had accepted deep time before then, because geology, and they understood that life evolved, but nobody knew how. Modern evophobia is a new development, and is akin to the whole gaggle of other conspiracy theories. Why people find them attractive baffles me. It is a peculiarly English-speaking phenomenon, found mostly in the U.S.A. There are other English-speaking countries where you can find creationists, but they are a small minority, even among Christians. They are regarded as cranks. Then there are evophobic cults in Islam and Judaism, but these can mostly be put down to abominable standards of education.
ReplyDeleteEvolutionary science makes a literal interpretation of the Bible untenable. So there goes your Christian doctrine of eternal life since there is zero evidence to support this belief aside from a literal interpretation of the Bible. On the other hand if current science can be shown to be false where it undercuts Biblical authority then the Bible gains credibility as does the doctrine of ETERNAL LIFE. Fundamentalists are perfectly logical. A Bible which accords literally with future scientific findings would prove that ETERNAL LIFE is a fact. Therefore the future of science must be that much the current alleged scientific wisdom such as evolution will be turned on its head.
ReplyDelete"Evolutionary science makes a literal interpretation of the Bible untenable."
ReplyDeleteAnd in like manner, so does the the astronomy of the Copernican revolution. There is not a hint in the bible to support modern i.e. the astronomy of Heliocentric solar system.
"Therefore the future of science must be that much the current alleged scientific wisdom such as evolution will be turned on its head."
I think that Genetics has really killed that delusional dream.
See Barry's discussions and videos on Endogenous Retro Viruses at the link below.
https://barryhisblog.blogspot.com/p/endogenous-retroviruses-frequently.html