IN our sound-bite political culture, it is unrealistic to expect that every complicated issue will be addressed with the nuance or subtlety it deserves. So I suppose I should not have been surprised earlier this month when, during the first Republican presidential debate, the candidates on stage were asked to raise their hands if they did not “believe” in evolution. As one of those who raised his hand, I think it would be helpful to discuss the issue in a bit more detail and with the seriousness it demands.
<snip>
The heart of the issue is that we cannot drive a wedge between faith and reason. I believe wholeheartedly that there cannot be any contradiction between the two. The scientific method, based on reason, seeks to discover truths about the nature of the created order and how it operates, whereas faith deals with spiritual truths. The truths of science and faith are complementary: they deal with very different questions, but they do not contradict each other because the spiritual order and the material order were created by the same God.
<snip>
The most passionate advocates of evolutionary theory offer a vision of man as a kind of historical accident. That being the case, many believers — myself included — reject arguments for evolution that dismiss the possibility of divine causality.
Ultimately, on the question of the origins of the universe, I am happy to let the facts speak for themselves. There are aspects of evolutionary biology that reveal a great deal about the nature of the world, like the small changes that take place within a species. Yet I believe, as do many biologists and people of faith, that the process of creation — and indeed life today — is sustained by the hand of God in a manner known fully only to him. It does not strike me as anti-science or anti-reason to question the philosophical presuppositions behind theories offered by scientists who, in excluding the possibility of design or purpose, venture far beyond their realm of empirical science.
Biologists will have their debates about man’s origins, but people of faith can also bring a great deal to the table. For this reason, I oppose the exclusion of either faith or reason from the discussion. An attempt by either to seek a monopoly on these questions would be wrong-headed. As science continues to explore the details of man’s origin, faith can do its part as well. The fundamental question for me is how these theories affect our understanding of the human person.
The unique and special place of each and every person in creation is a fundamental truth that must be safeguarded. I am wary of any theory that seeks to undermine man’s essential dignity and unique and intended place in the cosmos. I firmly believe that each human person, regardless of circumstance, was willed into being and made for a purpose.
Full article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/31/opinion/31brownback.html?em&ex=1180843200&en=7da15a7615f5d75d&ei=5087%0A____________________________________________________________________________________________________
This piece commits a fallacy at the heart of the quasi-rational criticism of evolution by people of faith (as opposed to flat-earth denial of the facts). Sen. Brownback says that evolution is based on a pre-determined philosophical outlook about the world. This is not how science is supposed to work. While there are some scientists who are dogmatic about the theory, by and large it is based on the unbiased examination of the available scientific data.
Religious thinkers, usually unintentionally, make the mistake of attributing an ideological assumption to scientists when entering into the evolution-creation debate. This is natural, because religious thought works this way; to those who don't understand science, it must seem that science has to operate the same way. Science and faith are distinctly different in that respect; when science is conducted in accordance with its proper methodology, it is devoid of
a priori
Brownback asserts that humanity has a special place in the universe, so the evolutionary explanation of our origins must be false despite the evidence because it contradicts that principle. Science looks at the observable facts and then comes to the conclusion that humanity has no special status in the universe. In that sense, faith and reason are directly opposite modes of thought. It seems obvious to me that reason is superior because it addresses reality.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
