What I Think About Evolution
What I Think About Evolution
Washington
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.
The premise behind the question seems to be that if one does not
unhesitatingly assert belief in evolution, then one must necessarily
believe that God created the world and everything in it in six 24-hour
days. But limiting this question to a stark choice between evolution
and creationism does a disservice to the complexity of the interaction
between science, faith and reason.
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.
People of faith should be rational, using the gift of reason that
God has given us. At the same time, reason itself cannot answer every
question. Faith seeks to purify reason so that we might be able to see
more clearly, not less. Faith supplements the scientific method by
providing an understanding of values, meaning and purpose. More than
that, faith — not science — can help us understand the breadth of human
suffering or the depth of human love. Faith and science should go
together, not be driven apart.
The question of evolution goes to the heart of this issue. If
belief in evolution means simply assenting to microevolution, small
changes over time within a species, I am happy to say, as I have in the
past, that I believe it to be true. If, on the other hand, it means
assenting to an exclusively materialistic, deterministic vision of the
world that holds no place for a guiding intelligence, then I reject it.
There is no one single theory of evolution, as proponents of
punctuated equilibrium and classical Darwinism continue to feud today.
Many questions raised by evolutionary theory — like whether man has a
unique place in the world or is merely the chance product of random
mutations — go beyond empirical science and are better addressed in the
realm of philosophy or theology.
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.
While no stone should be left unturned in seeking to discover the
nature of man’s origins, we can say with conviction that we know with
certainty at least part of the outcome. Man was not an accident and
reflects an image and likeness unique in the created order. Those
aspects of evolutionary theory compatible with this truth are a welcome
addition to human knowledge. Aspects of these theories that undermine
this truth, however, should be firmly rejected as an atheistic theology
posing as science.
Without hesitation, I am happy to raise my hand to that.
No comments:
Post a Comment