I mentioned earlier that I've been reading a book entitled Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution, by Ken Miller. Well, I'm almost finished, and I'm really happy I found this book. I first heard about Ken Miller in a story from the New York Times, about a debate sponsored by the Templeton Foundation, that asked, "Does science make belief in God obsolete?" Lots of intellectual heavyweights responded, including Miller and a notable atheist named Christopher Hitchens. The two of them went head-to-head in a debate that I followed closely. It was around this time I was in my second semester of Human anatomy and physiology, and microbiology as well, and the internal conflict I had put off since high school, about evolution, could no longer be ignored.
I remember being in my high school biology class, when I was first exposed to the real theory, not the popularized (or demonized) version from movies and television, and I just went with it. I didn't feel any urgent need to reconcile the theory with my understanding of scripture, or my worldview, which wasn't very developed by that point. But I do remember an unsettling feeling as the shear amount of evidence supporting it began to dawn on me. In fact, I began to see things I hadn't yet read about that were obvious proofs to me that animals were related to one-another. But I relented, rightly, that I did not have sufficient reason to believe one way or the other at that time.
After reading the debate between Miller and Hitchens I took it upon myself to study evolution on my own, to become informed enough to make a reasonable decision. I read everything I could find, and put all my knowledge of science to work in order to understand what I read. It took all my limited understanding of chemistry, physics, geology and biology to make sense of it all, but in the end, it did make sense. I came to the conclusion that evolution did happen, is happening, and will continue to happen as long as there is life on earth, and that we are no exception.
Today, we take many scientific discoveries that were very controversial when announced, for granted. For example: the fact that the earth is not flat (thanks to Columbus), or the center of the universe (thanks to Copernicus), that everything we interact with is made of matter (including us), that germs are responsible for disease (Pasteur), that matter obeys certain laws when a lot of it is present (Newton), but that at the smallest level, matter is still quite unpredictable (Plank, Einstein, Heisenberg), and that the elements are not constant and inert, but dynamic and changeable (Curie). No one in their right mind would dispute these great achievements of science given their utility to mankind and the vast amount of evidence that supports these facts. But for some reason, people see Darwin and his 'dangerous idea,' as being different, because it concerns a subject much closer to home, one that was thought the sole domain of the divine: the origin and diversity of life.
I admit, I thought Darwin, being an atheist, had an agenda with his theory: that his intentions were to deal a death blow to religion with a theory that would leave no need for God, because life as we know it arose via natural processes. I was aware of the philosophical movements of Darwin's time, and the enlightenment, and the attitude of many great thinkers (including Hume, Spinoza, Marx, Nietzche, Freud, and later Einstein) that the human race would "grow out of" our belief in God as we progress scientifically, and as our understanding of natural law erases the myths and superstitions of the past. But once I examined his writings, and the story of how he came upon his great discovery, any suspicion of his intentions left me. Darwin was not an anti-theist, and he certainly did not intend to upset religion and the social order. However, there are some real, undeniable obstacles to the peaceful coexistence and acceptance of evolution and belief in God, in the western sense.
I say "in the western sense," because the eastern concept of God and the divine is quite different than the personal, involved Father and Creator that the three great western faiths embrace. The gods of Hinduism, for example, are embodiments of one great god called Brahman, that can only be understood in the most mystical sense, as are the gods of Mahayana Buddhism. Also, there are a myriad of pantheistic religions that see God as nothing more than the sum of all natural processes, or nature. These do not believe that anything exists outside of nature; therefore, if there is a "God," God must be synonymous with nature. And, of course, there are the primitive animistic religions, and those of ancestor worship found in some remaining societies. As I said before, I reject such diluted forms of the divine as to make it an incomprehensible, impersonal, impotent, indifferent, and mystical force.
The biggest objection to evolution from a religious standpoint, is that if evolution produced us, which it certainly did, and according to the laws of nature this was a purely indeterminate event, meaning that evolution did not "mean" to make us, or try to make us, then what is the purpose of our existence? Religion gives us the purpose of our existence, and in that purpose is outlined our relationship with the divine. On the one hand we have science telling us that, as far as it can see, there is no purpose to life: and on the other, we have religion telling us that we are the children of God, special and preordained, and that science must be wrong. But science is not concerned with purpose, science is concerned with material and mechanism. Religion is not concerned with material, it is concerned with the spiritual, which includes purpose. The premise of the whole argument is wrong. Science and religion do not overlap, at least they shouldn't, and so there cannot, even in principle, be a conflict between them.
On the contrary, instead of being opponents, science and religion ought to work side-by-side in helping human beings complete their understanding the world: science to teach them how it works, and religion to teach them their purpose and place in it. As a Christian, I feel more empowered to give glory to God because I understand evolution. I understand and appreciate His genius a little bit better. This remarkable, epic tale of the emergence of life is far more gripping and inspiring than to think that life appeared in a creative burst of arbitrary magic. If natural laws govern the world now (and no one doubts that they do), why are they not good enough to have created it? Dr. Miller explains the relationship in this way:
By accepting this, we can avoid one of the great '7 Blunders that cause Violence,' given by Gandhi: "Science without Humanity." I think in Zion, a man can be a scientist and believer without living a double life.
I remember being in my high school biology class, when I was first exposed to the real theory, not the popularized (or demonized) version from movies and television, and I just went with it. I didn't feel any urgent need to reconcile the theory with my understanding of scripture, or my worldview, which wasn't very developed by that point. But I do remember an unsettling feeling as the shear amount of evidence supporting it began to dawn on me. In fact, I began to see things I hadn't yet read about that were obvious proofs to me that animals were related to one-another. But I relented, rightly, that I did not have sufficient reason to believe one way or the other at that time.
After reading the debate between Miller and Hitchens I took it upon myself to study evolution on my own, to become informed enough to make a reasonable decision. I read everything I could find, and put all my knowledge of science to work in order to understand what I read. It took all my limited understanding of chemistry, physics, geology and biology to make sense of it all, but in the end, it did make sense. I came to the conclusion that evolution did happen, is happening, and will continue to happen as long as there is life on earth, and that we are no exception.
Today, we take many scientific discoveries that were very controversial when announced, for granted. For example: the fact that the earth is not flat (thanks to Columbus), or the center of the universe (thanks to Copernicus), that everything we interact with is made of matter (including us), that germs are responsible for disease (Pasteur), that matter obeys certain laws when a lot of it is present (Newton), but that at the smallest level, matter is still quite unpredictable (Plank, Einstein, Heisenberg), and that the elements are not constant and inert, but dynamic and changeable (Curie). No one in their right mind would dispute these great achievements of science given their utility to mankind and the vast amount of evidence that supports these facts. But for some reason, people see Darwin and his 'dangerous idea,' as being different, because it concerns a subject much closer to home, one that was thought the sole domain of the divine: the origin and diversity of life.
I admit, I thought Darwin, being an atheist, had an agenda with his theory: that his intentions were to deal a death blow to religion with a theory that would leave no need for God, because life as we know it arose via natural processes. I was aware of the philosophical movements of Darwin's time, and the enlightenment, and the attitude of many great thinkers (including Hume, Spinoza, Marx, Nietzche, Freud, and later Einstein) that the human race would "grow out of" our belief in God as we progress scientifically, and as our understanding of natural law erases the myths and superstitions of the past. But once I examined his writings, and the story of how he came upon his great discovery, any suspicion of his intentions left me. Darwin was not an anti-theist, and he certainly did not intend to upset religion and the social order. However, there are some real, undeniable obstacles to the peaceful coexistence and acceptance of evolution and belief in God, in the western sense.
I say "in the western sense," because the eastern concept of God and the divine is quite different than the personal, involved Father and Creator that the three great western faiths embrace. The gods of Hinduism, for example, are embodiments of one great god called Brahman, that can only be understood in the most mystical sense, as are the gods of Mahayana Buddhism. Also, there are a myriad of pantheistic religions that see God as nothing more than the sum of all natural processes, or nature. These do not believe that anything exists outside of nature; therefore, if there is a "God," God must be synonymous with nature. And, of course, there are the primitive animistic religions, and those of ancestor worship found in some remaining societies. As I said before, I reject such diluted forms of the divine as to make it an incomprehensible, impersonal, impotent, indifferent, and mystical force.
The biggest objection to evolution from a religious standpoint, is that if evolution produced us, which it certainly did, and according to the laws of nature this was a purely indeterminate event, meaning that evolution did not "mean" to make us, or try to make us, then what is the purpose of our existence? Religion gives us the purpose of our existence, and in that purpose is outlined our relationship with the divine. On the one hand we have science telling us that, as far as it can see, there is no purpose to life: and on the other, we have religion telling us that we are the children of God, special and preordained, and that science must be wrong. But science is not concerned with purpose, science is concerned with material and mechanism. Religion is not concerned with material, it is concerned with the spiritual, which includes purpose. The premise of the whole argument is wrong. Science and religion do not overlap, at least they shouldn't, and so there cannot, even in principle, be a conflict between them.
On the contrary, instead of being opponents, science and religion ought to work side-by-side in helping human beings complete their understanding the world: science to teach them how it works, and religion to teach them their purpose and place in it. As a Christian, I feel more empowered to give glory to God because I understand evolution. I understand and appreciate His genius a little bit better. This remarkable, epic tale of the emergence of life is far more gripping and inspiring than to think that life appeared in a creative burst of arbitrary magic. If natural laws govern the world now (and no one doubts that they do), why are they not good enough to have created it? Dr. Miller explains the relationship in this way:
By any reasonable analysis, evolution does nothing to distance or
to weaken the power of God. We already know that we live in a world of natural
causes, explicable by the workings of natural law. All that evolution does is to
extend the workings of these natural laws to the novelty of life and to its
change over time. A God who presides over an evolutionary process is not an
impotent, passive observer. Rather, He is one whose genius fashioned a fruitful
world in which the process of continuing creation is woven into the fabric of
matter itself. He retains the freedom to act, to reveal Himself to His
creatures, to inspire, and to teach. He is the master of chance and time, whose
actions, both powerful and subtle, respect the independence of His creation and
give human beings the genuine freedom to accept or to reject His love.
(Finding Darwin's God, chap 8, pg 243)
By accepting this, we can avoid one of the great '7 Blunders that cause Violence,' given by Gandhi: "Science without Humanity." I think in Zion, a man can be a scientist and believer without living a double life.
Jordan, I'm really loving your blog. I'm currently in Zoology 1010, Animal Diversity, and one of the most prevelant arguments is the discussion of evolution. I was reared by a mother who embrassed the creationism point of view saying to not support the theories originally proposed by Darwin.
ReplyDeleteUpon study of my own, I have also been able to see that Darwin actually was correct in many of his observations (like the Theory of Perpetual Change and natural selection).
We are not denying God and spirituallity by having science, but rather we support Him more by learning about truths of natural processes.
Thanks for the stimulating reading, keep it up.