Faith and Evolution
Nathanael Szobody on Evolution is proposed as the governing dynamic of the universe. It is supposed to explain both the micro- and macrocosmic origin and development of life. Even if this is not said to be a religion or faith, it is a world view and cultural perspective. We should approach it as such.
Whether the beliefs of animists are religious or cultural matters little when comparing them to Christianity; so also with evolution. If we are considering only the philosophy of religion in general, and comparing different philosophies of various religions, then evolutionists have already excluded themselves from the discussion: they contend that their teachings are not religious. They have disqualified themselves from making any statement concerning the truth of any religion; it is outside their realm of study.
If, however, we are examining all belief and teaching in light of our own religious perspective, then we should treat the theory of evolution as we do the teachings of Islam, Buddism, animism or any other worldview. We examine the basis for the belief, examine the observable facts, and come to a conclusion consistent with our spiritual interpretive framework.
We must define the parameters of discussion. If evolution is not a religion, then let the theory of evolution be proved or disproved by what is observed to be occurring today. If it is a faith, then let the fruit of that faith be compared to the fruit of the love of the body of Christ, founded in the literal interpretation of scripture as the interpretive framework for all of reality.
Comments ( 2 )
I agree:
However I do want to point out that it is inconsistent for an evolutionist to claim that his realm of study is not religious and yet to make the claim, based on science, that particular religious beliefs are false. This is to say that when discussing the relationship between science and faith we must define the limits of respective fields of study.
My opinion is as stated in the post:
Natural science is limited to the physical observations that are made in the universe today. Natural science can take measurements, make observations, and come to conclusions on how the natural world works today, and theories as to how it may have worked in the past. However, when natural scientists try to explain origins and come to conclusions on the existence of an intelligent, personal God, then they have made a faith of their science. And insofar as they do this, we should understand it as a faith that is not disproved by empirical data, but by the spiritual power of Jesus Christ.
As for the relationship between science and the Word of God this is my tentative position: The Bible is not a scientific document. It is, however, a historical one. Therefore we need not come to scientific conclusions based on the psalmists statement that the LORD founded the earth on pillars. But we do hold to the historical fact that the world was created in six days, and that it was, in fact God who founded it. Creation itself is revelation; the written Word need not reveal that to us. If it did, it would contain scientific truths that would yet be incomprehensible to us.
The problem with the discussion is that evolutionists attempt to overstep the boundaries of their science and use it to explain history--something that can only be alluded to by actual physical observational data. Rather as Christians we go the other way. We take what we know to be historically true, and through it understand the scientific data.