Why does evolutionary theory conflict with religion?
Jeff,
First, allow me to thank you for posting your thoughts.
You begin by asserting, as a premise, that the idea that evolution and religion are in conflict with each other is based upon the false notion that if one part of the Scriptures is wrong, then the entire Scriptures are wrong. This is a false assumption. Rather, religious believers (Christians in this case) hold that the entirety of the Scriptures is true and so anything that claims one part is false is therefore "unbiblical."
Of course, this still does not mean that evolution is unbiblical. Many theistic evolutionists, such as Kenneth Miller of Brown University, hold that the Genesis account could allow for evolution. However, a careful reading of Darwin himself shows that this simply isn't the case. Eight times in the Genesis account the Bible writes that God created each according to its own kind. Fifteen times in Darwin's On the Origin of Species, however, he writes that such creation "according to one's own kind" is simply unexplainable and false. And so, contrary to popular belief, Darwin's theory is NOT compatible with the Genesis account.
You are correct when you say that science and religion are not enemies. People like you and me, though we disagree on the issue of intelligent design and evolution, agree that the two can be allies. It is those like Richard Dawkins who hold that science is, in and of itself, the enemy of religion and that science will crush religion. This, for good reason, poses a threat to both science AND religion and also, more importantly, to the conversation between the two.
However, because, as you point out, that the two are not necessarily in conflict with each other, we see something interesting here. Many evolutionists--such as Michael Behe, Jonathan Wells, William Dembski, Anthony Flew, and others--are no longer evolutionists today. Sure, accuse them of being ID proponents now but remember that they ALL were evolutionists at one point and changed--not because of religious thought, but because of science.
See, those who argue that evolution is compatible with Genesis because God "could have done it whichever way He desires" are not wrong. God could, indeed, have used evolution to bring about the diversity of species on this planet. That is NOT the question--the question is WHETHER He chose to do so. For example, I attend school in Waco, Texas (Baylor University). I can choose to arrive in Waco a number of different ways--by car, by bus, by plane, by bike, by foot even! Because I choose to drive doesn't mean that I couldn't fly or bike. Because I choose to fly doesn't mean I couldn't walk or taken public transportation. Christians are not limiting the ways God could have brought about His creation--they are merely pointing that the evidence doesn't support evolution.
Finally, evolutionists accuse Christians of thinking in a box: they believe in Genesis, Genesis says God created, Darwin doesn't, therefore Christians believe Darwin is wrong. Sure, this sound like rather boxed up reasoning. But aren't theistic evolutionists doing the same? Look at their logic: I believe in evolution, I believe in God and the Bible, the Bible says God created, therefore I say God created through evolution. In this case the evolutionists--just as they accuse Christians of it--cannot let go of their premises, even when shown that they no longer hold true.
Think about this and consider it. And again, thanks for posting.
Best wishes,
Sam
It really kills me when Darwinists try to "comfort" Christians by saying that there's no incompatibility between Darwinism and Christianity. You see, they won't allow a theory like Intelligent Design to be taught in schools essentially because it is too compatible with the Biblical account of creation… so convinced of this are they that they routinely refer to Intelligent Design as "creationism in a cheap tuxedo."
So, if we can't teach one theory because it is compatible with the Biblical account and because it points to God, and if Darwin's theory of evolution can be seen also to be compatible with the Biblical account and can also be seen as pointing to God, then why is it that we can teach Darwinism in schools?
Sam's right… there is no compatibility between Darwinism and the Biblical account, and the Darwinists know this. If it was really compatible, then Darwinism wouldn't be taught in schools either.
Once again I'm blown away by the irony of it all.
Of course, this still does not mean that evolution is unbiblical. Many theistic evolutionists, such as Kenneth Miller of Brown University, hold that the Genesis account could allow for evolution. However, a careful reading of Darwin himself shows that this simply isn't the case. Eight times in the Genesis account the Bible writes that God created each according to its own kind. Fifteen times in Darwin's On the Origin of Species, however, he writes that such creation "according to one's own kind" is simply unexplainable and false. And so, contrary to popular belief, Darwin's theory is NOT compatible with the Genesis account.
Sam, I've often heard it said that some parts of Scripture are intended to be read as metaphor or as sacred literature, even poetry rather than as a literal account of the mechanics and history of creation.
Naturally this is not a position I would ever personally advocate, but nonetheless I would love to hear your own reflection on this "trendy", "post modernist" reading of the Holy Bible?
PS. I've never read Darwin's origin of species, and I am mightily impressed that you were able to put up with his Victorian twaddle! I gave up after page five. Much to my surprise, when I was able to confront an evolutionary biologist on the matter she also admitted that she had not read it either. Dont you think it's bizarre that evolutionists have not even read their "holy book", how do they know what to think?
Helena
For an excellent and very accessible book that covers the question of whether science is antagonistic toward God, I highly recommend this book.
God's Undertaker; Has Science Buried God?
by the British mathematician, John C. Lennox
I first learned about this from the
review by Denyse O'Leary (Thanks Denyse!)
I believe it is destined to be a classic. I am not aware of a better starting point for studying this topic.
Lennox expertly refutes mistaken notions of conflict, and identifies the actual nature of the real conflict.
Is it just a coincidence that contemporary atheists are so stirred up to make big claims about science on the one hand, while at the same time people such as former atheist Antony Flew are leaving atheism -- because of the scientific evidence? I suspect not.
As to why evolutionary theory seems to be such an imminent threat to religion has more to do with what is written in scripture than the practice of religion itself in modern society. The crux of the arguments lies in the belief that if one part of the bible is historically incorrect, then the whole book is incorrect.
The aim of science is not to undermine the belief in the existence of a God for the benefit of itself. Science is as much a natural science inasmuch as our natural curiosity to want to know about the world, the universe. We are a curiosity driven species. That's why we can observe the world the way we do. And communicate about it.
Humans evolved because of our curiosity.
That's not to say that it precludes the possibility that there wasn't something divine in the 'process'. According to the scientific method, God is not proven, nor disproven. As such I guess I could be defined as to being agnostic. While I am not a proponent of what was stated in the Old Testament, namely, Genesis (which I think was a mere attempt of the authors to explain 'everything' and falsely assumed everything to have been all of a suddenly "created" out of mere convenience and add weight to what the rest of the book had to say. For the most part, the bible contains a great many truths. No question in my mind. And for the most part, I live up to the teachings of the gospel. Because I strongly feel that's how we must live and be civilized at the same time. Morality.
Why is science education a threat to religion? Why has it gotten to the point that religion must go head to head with science like it has recently in order to encourage others to follow their beliefs, to preach morality. Isn't that what this is all about, morality?
Because many scientists believe the first chapter of the bible to be wrong has nothing to do with what the rest of the book includes. Evolutionary theory is not against religion, it provides understanding in a conceptual framework. It does not attempt to explain initial origins of life. Only how life has changed on Earth, and with what we know about how the Earth has changed over millions of years. And that's why evolution not only is supported by research in biological sciences, but the Earth sciences as well, like geology, climate science, ocean science, ecology, soil science, biogeochemistry, etc.
It provides an amazing amount of insight into how science is conducted in biology. If we are to truly believe how biology works, understanding of evolution is fundamental.
We live in an amazing country. We are among the most generous people. Despite the things that divide us in this country, there are things that we do that are not characterized by party affilitation, and that's our generosity. What's the party affiliation of US prison inmates? Does science pervade popular culture and ideals? Is the assumption that science as to being secular assume that society as a whole is secularly driven?
I know many will take this as to being biased. Much the same, I take a great deal of what is posted on this website to be biased. Are any of us less human than the other? If ID is about intelligent debate, and I'm a product of 'intelligent design', do I not deserve any more word on here than any of thou?
Let the creative and intelligent discussion begin.
jeff
login or register to post comments | -1 points