Evolutionary Heresy
I'd meant to post Chapter One of my novel and have you folks cleave it to pieces, but I want a chance to rewrite it somewhat before I hurl it into cyberspace. In the meantime, I received a very recent comment to one of my very first posts, Evolution Poisons Everything, which led me to today's magnum opus.
Philip, a fine young man who lacks Sarah Palin love, took issue with my statement that "the theory of evolution is pretty good at explaining intraspecies adaptation but woefully inept at explaining how one species evolves into another, or how complex systems like eyes develop out of a series of random mutations."
Here's Philip's response:
I don't want to rewrite and re-argue what I said back then, as the power of my original genius can still be seen by all, but I want to personalize this a little bit.
See, my wife thinks I'm a loon on this, too.
She's coming from a different place than Philip is, I'm sure. She's a woman of faith and a former Biology major who sees no conflict between science and religion, whereas Philip is not a big fan of religion of any stripe. Yet she also bristles when I start questioning evolution - and she mocks me mercilessly. She has told many people, on many occasions, that I believe dinosaurs "fell out of the sky." That's a gross misrepresentation of my position, which isn't that big a problem, as I'm not really quite sure what my actual position is at any given time.
What drives her crazy is that I don't particularly care about the issue much.
No, that's not entirely true. I actually think it's fascinating, and I'm certainly engaged in the political discussion surrounding it. What I mean when I say I don't care is that I don't care about the issue theologically. Nothing in what I believe about God, me, and the relationship between the two is remotely affected by whether fish sprouted legs and became squirrels/monkeys/people. I don't treat the Old Testament like science, and, conversely, I don't treat Darwin like religion. I believe truth is truth, and that when the whole picture becomes clear, we'll see how the religion and science pieces fit together.
I've learned over the years, however, that atheists can't afford the luxury of evolutionary disinterest.
One need not prove evolution false to believe in God. But the converse is not true; if there is no God, then evolution, or some other arbitrary explanation, has to account for existence. That is why evolution can't be questioned dispassionately the same way, say, the theory of gravity is. Nobody's personal concept of Deity is threatened by exploration into why objects of small mass are drawn to objects of larger mass. Questions like "why?" or "how?" with regard to gravity aren't the equivalent of saying that you believe things fall up instead of down.
Yet when you start to say "why?" or "how?" about evolution, suddenly you're announcing that the world was created on October 23, 4004 BC. Because questions about evolution aren't just questions; they're atheistic heresies. They need to be quashed, evaded, and ridiculed, because there's too much at stake for those who rely on evolution as justification for their rejection of a higher power.
I think I am retreading some of the ground of my previous post, so I want to extend the discussion into a consideration of what has come to be known as Intelligent Design. Some think it's little more than gussied-up Creationism, which is the province of those who think biology teachers should be using Genesis as a scientific textbook. From what I can tell, ID is much more sophisticated than that. It certainly raises excellent questions, particularly about the unlikelihood of natural selection as an explanation for complex systems. But its alternative answer - life was designed! - isn't helpful. Or, at least, it's not scientifically helpful.
Consider this: a car shows up in your driveway. Where did this car come from? Answer: It was designed! Well, okay, great, but how? Where? What was the process? And how did it get here? I don't even need to know "why" as a scientific inquiry. Just telling me that the car has been "designed" doesn't tell me anything of value. Unless Intelligent Designers can provide scientific evidence of an alternative process to evolution, just touting "design" isn't adequate.
Fortunately, I can wait until all the evidence is in. It's too bad that atheists can't be nearly as patient.
Philip, a fine young man who lacks Sarah Palin love, took issue with my statement that "the theory of evolution is pretty good at explaining intraspecies adaptation but woefully inept at explaining how one species evolves into another, or how complex systems like eyes develop out of a series of random mutations."
Here's Philip's response:
no, in fact evolution is perfectly suited to explaining those things as well, does so in scholarly papers that are rigorously peer reviewed, and has been doing so for many moons now. the supposed holes in the theory are nothing more than the ignorant showing their epidermis.I responded, too, saying the following:
Not so, Philip. There's not a single peer-reviewed article that comes close to explaining the evolution of complex systems like the eye. And the fossil record has been woefully unkind to anyone trying to show gradual transition from one species to another. Articles provide much speculation on these subjects - and plenty of insult to heretics who dare to question - but nothing approaching hard facts.
I don't want to rewrite and re-argue what I said back then, as the power of my original genius can still be seen by all, but I want to personalize this a little bit.
See, my wife thinks I'm a loon on this, too.
She's coming from a different place than Philip is, I'm sure. She's a woman of faith and a former Biology major who sees no conflict between science and religion, whereas Philip is not a big fan of religion of any stripe. Yet she also bristles when I start questioning evolution - and she mocks me mercilessly. She has told many people, on many occasions, that I believe dinosaurs "fell out of the sky." That's a gross misrepresentation of my position, which isn't that big a problem, as I'm not really quite sure what my actual position is at any given time.
What drives her crazy is that I don't particularly care about the issue much.
No, that's not entirely true. I actually think it's fascinating, and I'm certainly engaged in the political discussion surrounding it. What I mean when I say I don't care is that I don't care about the issue theologically. Nothing in what I believe about God, me, and the relationship between the two is remotely affected by whether fish sprouted legs and became squirrels/monkeys/people. I don't treat the Old Testament like science, and, conversely, I don't treat Darwin like religion. I believe truth is truth, and that when the whole picture becomes clear, we'll see how the religion and science pieces fit together.
I've learned over the years, however, that atheists can't afford the luxury of evolutionary disinterest.
One need not prove evolution false to believe in God. But the converse is not true; if there is no God, then evolution, or some other arbitrary explanation, has to account for existence. That is why evolution can't be questioned dispassionately the same way, say, the theory of gravity is. Nobody's personal concept of Deity is threatened by exploration into why objects of small mass are drawn to objects of larger mass. Questions like "why?" or "how?" with regard to gravity aren't the equivalent of saying that you believe things fall up instead of down.
Yet when you start to say "why?" or "how?" about evolution, suddenly you're announcing that the world was created on October 23, 4004 BC. Because questions about evolution aren't just questions; they're atheistic heresies. They need to be quashed, evaded, and ridiculed, because there's too much at stake for those who rely on evolution as justification for their rejection of a higher power.
I think I am retreading some of the ground of my previous post, so I want to extend the discussion into a consideration of what has come to be known as Intelligent Design. Some think it's little more than gussied-up Creationism, which is the province of those who think biology teachers should be using Genesis as a scientific textbook. From what I can tell, ID is much more sophisticated than that. It certainly raises excellent questions, particularly about the unlikelihood of natural selection as an explanation for complex systems. But its alternative answer - life was designed! - isn't helpful. Or, at least, it's not scientifically helpful.
Consider this: a car shows up in your driveway. Where did this car come from? Answer: It was designed! Well, okay, great, but how? Where? What was the process? And how did it get here? I don't even need to know "why" as a scientific inquiry. Just telling me that the car has been "designed" doesn't tell me anything of value. Unless Intelligent Designers can provide scientific evidence of an alternative process to evolution, just touting "design" isn't adequate.
Fortunately, I can wait until all the evidence is in. It's too bad that atheists can't be nearly as patient.
posted by Elder Samuel Bennett | 1:14 PM
10 Comments:
Stallion Man, I like the way you think and the way you write.
One interesting view on creationism vs. evolution (or science vs. religion) is available from Dr. Henry Eyring, now deceased (1981). He published over 500 scientific papers, so he was no slouch. There is not room here to adequately state his position, but basically he said he too will wait for all of the evidence. He also was a very religious person and well regarded for his scriptural and spiritual insights. His grandson, Henry J Eyring wrote a book about him entitled "The Mormon Scientist" that contains many of his opinions and sections of speeches on the topic.
A very enlightened man, science will catch up with God eventualy, but not anytime soon.
SM
Here’s something to twist your noodle. Astronomers believe that every element that makes up you was created in at least 3 different Supernova explosions. Think of that. The carbon, iron, oxygen was smelted in the heart of a dying sun. The gold in your wedding ring was formed during the actual explosion.
The thing is God was there. He saw it all happen. He knows each and every atom in you and from where it came from and where it will be in 10K years.
Just because someone believes a universe that is 15 billion years instead of 6K does not make them any more of a believer.
SC wrote, "That is why evolution can't be questioned dispassionately the same way, say, the theory of gravity is. Nobody's personal concept of Deity is threatened by exploration into why objects of small mass are drawn to objects of larger mass."
Do not mock Garry the God of Gravity! To do so is an open invitation for things to drop on your head, from an appreciable height.
Philip, Mr. Cornell, Mrs. Cornell, and I are Evolutionists.
Mr. Cornell, Mrs. Cornell, and I are Creationist-Evolutionists.
Mrs. Cornell and I are Biology-minded-Creationist-Evolutionists.
Discussions among us (or people like us) degrade into nonsense without having first established a common frame of reference -- much like what would happen if a High School athlete attempted to describe to a toddler the finer strategic points of a specific offensive play in football.
Clearly, Mrs. Cornell and I are more so like the speechless HS football player -- muted from shedding any more light for our friends until they have progressed further along in their personal journeys of growth and learning.
Hang in there, Mrs. Cornell. Your other half will come around, in time. He did mention something like he is willing to wait for all the evidence before committing to a position on dinosaurs.
So my concept of evolution isn't biology minded? Say what?
You're all nutz.
DNA is god. Time to worship genes.
All hail Levis!
So what part of the sky did 30' carnivorous birds fall from?
So my concept of evolution isn't biology minded? Say what?
Politics
Personal life stories
Entertainment
Religion
Science
The above list shows how I would rank these five general topics by the amount of time (blog space) you give to each.
The order would be different for me and Mrs. Cornell, if we blogged all our thoughts.
The degree of one's biology-mindedness is not a measure of his smarts or usefulness, it is simply a frame of reference one chooses to enter more or less deeply, relative to the core of current world discussions on that topic.
Thank you for this very reasoned argument on this topic. As a geologist, I personally believe there is quite a bit of evidence for evolution, and as a student at BYU-Idaho we in the geology department are occasionally told by the religion department we are going to Hell. I personally believe that the complexity of evolution fits nicely with the dual nature of man, and the commandment to put off the natural man, and in spite of McConkie's opinion evolution to me makes the atonement that much more meaningful.
It is your analysis of the politics that to me is brilliant, particularly your statement about atheism leaving a void that must be filled with some belief. They typically fill it with Darwinism and/or extremist environmentalism. Michael Crichton has an excellent speech on this:
http://www.michaelcrichton.com/speech-environmentalismaseligion.html
Now I need to go back and read your old post. If you don't mind, I may in the near future quote you (and give you credit, of course!) on my own blog.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home