Faith & Science (part two).
If you missed my first post giving all of my disclaimers . . . then you should read it first before you read what’s below.
I think things evolve. Or maybe “emerge” is a better word. I don’t think I came from the primordial sludge. Moving from amoeba to tadpole. Tadpole to bird. Bird to wolf. Wolf to ape. Ape to me.
That’s kind of sketchy.
But things emerge. They get stronger through time. The weak things get pushed to the edges and lost forever. The strong things push forward and take out everything in their path.
This is micro-evolution. As opposed to macro-evolution which is when one species evolves into another.
This seems like the most logical conclusion. While I think logic and rational thought are extremely limited in academic discourse . . . they also are very helpful. Too many Christians have these elaborate descriptions of things. For example, listen to a Southern Baptist church try to explain The Book of the Revelation. The charts and things you have to create/make-up in order for that theology to make sense is way beyond elaborate. It’s eccentric and excessive.
And while rational discourse has it’s limits . . . it is also very helpful.
For example, when people say the Earth is 6,000 years old despite every shred and piece of scientific information that we have says the opposite . . . is tom-foolery. The theology, history, and science that you have to make-up in order to reach that conclusion is exhausting. As opposed to its alternative explanation.
I guess my point is this. Things should make relative sense. They don’t have to be fully explained. And you can’t get rid of mystery. But it is ok to incorporate things outside of religion and ritual into your faith.
It probably has to do with how we hold the Bible. If we think every word is literal . . . then we inevitably come to a particular conclusion. Even if it’s contradicts other things. And if we think that the Scriptures are much more nuanced, yet equally useful and inspiring, then we are able to hold more things in our hands. Or at least hold them in tension a little better.
This is probably a conversation for another day. But it seems a little naive to think that people who thought the world was flat and that the heart was the “brain” of the body . . . could formulate complex explanations of things.
I guess I’m saying all of this to say that I’m really clueless. Moses was way smarter than me. And Paul even more so. But I doubt that they had full knowledge of what was going on at an atomic and quantum level.
But then you have the option that God controlled the hands of the writers and dictated the words himself. Like some creepy medium from a b-flick horror movie.
But then it wouldn’t be the Bible then would it.
monts
Wednesday, 2. May 2007 um 9:21 am Uhr
i don’t disagree with you (but i think you also probably mean ‘micro to macro’ at the top).
i wouldn’t necessarily say that it is the created order—or the way that God intended for things to be from the beginning, but it doesn’t just mirror itself in creation but in our own personal everyday lives. i think this is why jesus subverts all that stuff and tells us that it’s our job to live in the paradox—last will be first, first will be last; etc. it’s like jesus is telling us not only to do this in our own everyday lives, but by doing so how would that change creation? how would that begin to bring the kingdom and change the way that things are now?
i’m a little groggy, so that might not make sense…
Derek
Wednesday, 2. May 2007 um 9:55 am Uhr
I have some controversial thoughts on the subject of Creation. Well, controversial to the church, anyway, but I get the feeling that we would mostly agree on it.
I do think the Bible was inspired, but it was also written by men. Not an either/or, but a both. So the scientific worldview of the writer is evident whenever scientific topics come up.
But because it is also inspired by God (“God-breathed” as Timothy puts it), there are subtle scientific truths in there as well. But for the most part, when the Bible describes something like “pi = 3″ (which it does), we have to understand that the passage wasn’t trying to relate the value of pi.
Similarly, we need to be careful about applying certain levels of scientific emphasis on other passages that do not require it.
There is also a huge difference between what is related before Abraham in Genesis and everything else, both in terms of writing and style and in terms of history. The Abraham account is the beginning of Israel’s history, whereas everything before that is more like a prologue, the ancient myths (be they true or not) that inform Israel about God and his relationship with man. They are essential to the story, but they are not the essential story. The story begins with Abraham.
Anyone who can believe that life can just “evolve” out of nothing is irrational. Similarly, anyone who can believe that life can just be “created” by God, out of nothing, is irrational. Neither can be discretely explained and precisely defined. So evolutionary theory is not really that different from creationism or intelligent design. The primary difference is that they can look at nature and still deny that God exists.
“For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities–his eternal power and divine nature–have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.” (Romans 1:20)
Josh
Wednesday, 2. May 2007 um 10:38 am Uhr
whoo hoo! derek we finally agree on something! i only knew it would be a matter of time!
i agree with you on both being irrational. and i agree that “inspiration” does not mean innerrancy. but just because it’s not “innerant” doesn’t mean that it’s not inspiring, right, or true. to me it makes it more true that it is written in a specific cultural context, by a specific person. that God would allow weird eccentric people to tell their stories of how they related to God and He to them is such a better alternative than some robotic dictation or dropping it pre-made down into their laps.
and i agree that you can’t apply science to every passage. it can certainly inform the interpretation. but it is intimately connected to the mysterious and faith at the same time. too many people want to use one method without the other. it’s both/and.
mystery and common sense are both valuable things. those without mystery end up explaining away miracles. while those without common sense end up with fairy tales.