15 July 2008

Creation and Evolution

I have no interest in the ongoing Creation vs. Evolution debates. To me, they end up be contests on who can spit the farthest (or arguments on who has the better scientists). I'm not even remotely interested in harmonizing modern scientific discoveries with Scripture. The Bible is not a science text. Unfortunately this seems to be the modus operandi of Biblical apologists, as seen here and here. I'm one who firmly believes that religion and science do not necessarily have to be at constant odds with each other, but in fact can enhance one another by pushing each other to reach farther and deeper.

Science tells us that we theologians may have to do some rethinking on deep-seated beliefs. This is nothing new. Copernicus had the nerve to say that our solar system is heliocentric and that the planets revolve around the sun. He was quickly excoriated by the Roman Catholic Church as a heretic for even suggesting such a thing. Today, we know he was correct. The church should welcome scientific discoveries as possibilities rather than problems when they don't fit our dogmatic texts. It could very well be that our dogma needs freshening up a bit. Rethinking Genesis 1 might be a great start. It might very well be a metaphoric account of the creation of Israel and not a play-by-play account of the creation of the universe. There's always something about a literalistic and mechanistic reading of Genesis 1 that rubs the wrong way.

Theology informs science by holding it accountable. It's not enough to just look at raw data and draw conclusions. Any conclusion drawn from empirical data is debatable. Peer reviews, science journals, further experimentation, and new data should be welcomed as futhering the scientific enterprise. In other words, any finding should never claim to be absolute truth until all the data has been reviewed and all of the theories have been proven (which usually happens when all of the challenges to said theories have been thoroughly debunked). Science should never settle for overly simplistic answers and realize that their "pictures" may not be the "big picture".

Working together, science and religion can and should constantly call each other to humility, wonder, and awe, and not get so apoplectic when challenged. I am amazed when I see images from the Hubble Telescope. I am humbled when science tells us that stars throughout the galaxy are exploding and shooting all of the elements of the periodical table out into space. I'm also amazed that many scientists are beginning to view the universe as an organism and not a machine. The universe seems to have an emergent creativity to it. It's almost as if the universe has a goal as celestial bodies die and come to life, and order emerges from chaos. One could say that the universe is giving itself away and being reborn constantly.

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

Science claims that it is impossible for a man to be resurrected from the dead after three days in a tomb. Should I rethink this deep-seated belief?

A college professor of mine who was a scientist said that a world wide flood was impossible. I guess I need to rethink this belief?

At what point are we supposed to stop reading the Bible as a metaphoric account of the children of Israel?

Do you think the fall of man into sin was a metaphoric account?

Ross

Doug Hoag said...

Ross,

I was referring to Genesis 1. It's usually read as a step-by-step account of the creation of the universe that is completely detached from the rest of the Bible. It's quite possible to read it another way. Every ancient civilization has creation stories that are ultimately about themselves and the surrounding nations using cosmic imagery. Genesis 1 could be just such literature. The New Testament backs me on this, for example John 1 (which I read as the creation account of the New Israel--very exciting!!)

As per the two links I had in my post, people are trying to harmonize the findings of science with the creation account of Genesis 1. This just causes an impasse and sets up us vs. them scenarios.

Perhaps my use of the word "rethink" was a bit crude. My apologies. But I do think our deep-seated beliefs need to be fleshed out more. I believe Jesus rose from the dead, but it's so much more than a resusitation. I believe there was a flood, but it's so much more than water. I believe that man fell into sin, but it's so much more than fruit from a tree.

Chris said...

2 quotes from Albert Einstein might be helpful in this discussion:

“Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind.”
- Albert Einstein

and

“There are only two ways to live your life. One is as though nothing is a miracle. The other is as though everything is a miracle.”
- Albert Einstein