I wrote this in response to two articles written in my school newspaper... That is what I'm referencing, but it also argues for a reconciliation between faith and science.
WAR: Will there ever be peace between Science and Religion?
A Theological Paper by Carly aka Cinders
Ever since man looked up to the heavens and asked those profound questions “Why? How?” science and religion have disagreed with each other. But should they? Is there a way to reconcile scientific theories with religion?
Upon reading the articles by Thomas Baxter and Robert Comer in the spring 2006 edition of CAC’s The Eagle, I found interesting points in both. Intrigued by the articles, I did my own research into not only biology, evolution and religion, but also physics and metaphysics. To clarify, I am not trying to prove or disprove the evolutionary theory, merely correct some misconceptions in the articles, answer a few questions asked (albeit their original rhetorical nature), and provide a personal theory of how religion and science may find a place to agree.
First of all, before listing the good points in the articles, allow me to point out a few discrepancies. Tom Baxter provides little hard evidence for his argument for evolution, which honestly only exists in the first to paragraphs. However, the rest of the article is a fine opinion on religion in science, and reminds me of many conversations I myself have had. Might I add that his question, “How many times must we prove a theory until it becomes fact?” is a simple one to answer—until beyond the shadow of a doubt. One may ask a similar question concerning the Big Bang Theory, which has much evidence to support it, however as there is no way of knowing or understanding for sure exactly what happened in the past, it remains a theory. Why? Because there may be other possibilities that agree with the evidence that we have not yet conceived or uncovered. While evolution is still a respectable and logical theory for our time, it is not the only possibility. Consider scientific history like written history: it, too, can be one-sided, as other evidence might have disappeared over time. However, Douglas Theobald explains that, “Though science formally cannot establish absolute truth, it can provide overwhelming evidence in favor of certain ideas.”
While evolution seems only an example of how science is often disproved with religious evidence in Baxter’s article, it is the main focus of Rob Comer’s, who seems to seek solely to debunk it. Props to Comer for a well thought-out and well-researched article, however some of his evidence, while factual, is slightly skewed, and he can seem a bit hypocritical. For example, he asks, “Why must science dwell only on the proven microevolution field and then assert that macro must be true as well?” and claims that “each and every evolutionary icon has been proven false.” John Wilkins answers his question in his web article, Macroevolution, “Antievolutionists argue that there has been no proof of macroevolutionary processes. However, synthesists claim that the same processes that cause within-species changes of the frequencies of alleles can be extrapolated to between species changes, so this argument fails unless some mechanism for preventing microevolution causing macroevolution is discovered.” I hope I answered his question. Also, I would like to state that using such absolute vocabulary like “each and every” was not only unnecessary and unsupported, but untrue.
To clarify to those who are confused by these terms, macroevolution is defined by Wilkins as “any evolutionary change at or above the level of species” and microevolution is defined as “any evolutionary change below the level of species.” That is, macroevolution deals with the development of a new branch off of the evolutionary tree while microevolution deals more with the branch of new alleles within species on a genetic level. In the words of Wilkins, “There is no difference between micro- and macroevolution except that genes between species usually diverge, while genes within species usually combine. The same processes that cause within-species evolution are responsible for above-species evolution, except that the processes that cause speciation include things that cannot happen to lesser groups, such as the evolution of different sexual apparatus.”
While macroevolution is still challenged, it is also still widely accepted, particularly the theory of Common Decent, a large part of the macroevolutionary theory. Dr. Theobald clearly outlines its scientific evidence in his work, 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution. Too numerous to list here, I provide an overview on Theobald’s proof of Common Decent. (Bold added for emphasis)
“Simply put, the theory of universal common descent, combined with modern biological knowledge, is used to deduce predictions. These predictions are then compared to the real world in order see how the theory fares in light of the observable evidence. In every example, it is quite possible that the predictions could be contradicted by the empirical evidence. In fact, if universal common descent were not accurate, it is highly probable that these predictions would fail. These empirically validated predictions present such strong evidence for common descent for precisely this reason.”
As this work was updated March 29 of this year, I would consider this list of evidence up-to-date information which has not yet been disproved. Therefore Comer’s assumption that “each and every evolutionary icon” was disproved is incorrect.
Moving on from critiquing the articles, I would like to emphasize that while there are many theories on life and its origins and progressions, there is no way to prove completely one way or the other that one theory is completely factual. That said, I request that skeptics of the religious theory retain an open mind, and that disbelievers of the evolutionary theory remain receptive to new ideas. As Comer alluded to in his article, both are based on beliefs. Whether you believe in God, or science, we still believe due to facts, logic, faith or all three.
Religion has often been a source of comfort in hard times, assurances that we are not alone, a foundation for a moral code, and, most of all, answers to the inexplicable. There is nothing wrong with religion, in fact there is everything right with it, so long as it is not used as a reason to persecute, condemn, or otherwise judge others. As Baxter mentioned, as far as religious texts go, they can be interpreted in not just two ways, but an infinite amount of ways, ranging in the extremely literal to the exceptionally metaphorical. Theologians and philosophers could sit and talk for days, as they have done, on the innumerable ways to interpret religious texts including but not limited to the Koran, Bible and Torah. There are fewer ways to interpret scientific findings. While many things in religious texts are abstract and up for interpretation, most things in science are clear and concrete, though open to falsifiability and alteration.
However, there are some instances in which science becomes abstract and religion becomes concrete. The Christian and Jewish Ten Commandments, for example, is very straight forward. And physics has theories which make Escher’s patterns almost seem possible in real life; some concepts make our head hurt trying to imagine them. Concepts like the fourth (or more!) dimension, the infinity of the universe (infinite on both a macro and micro scale), the manipulation of space and time, and indeed even the idea of time itself. Mathematics accounts for plenty of what we perceive as physical impossibilities (such as the black hole) and yet, as math tells us, they somehow exist. Do they exist on this plane? On some other? Can there be multiple universes? It is asking questions like these in which people trickle out of the physical and dribble into the metaphysical.
My proposition is: There are many things that people believe exist because their religion says it’s possible (such as Heaven, Hell, God, etc). There are many things that people believe exist because mathematics says it’s possible (such as black holes, the warping of time which is often presumed to be a constant, infinity, etc.) It is here that, in my opinion, religion and science find common ground. Could these anomalies in physics as we know it prove God’s presence to a skeptic scientist? Quite possibly. Could it be that the reason the Bible and other texts are so ambiguous be because there are some things that we, as mortals, do not have the capacity to understand? Why not? Just as there are many things in science that we try to wrap our minds around but just cannot grasp. A favorite movie of mine spoofing Catholic dogma claimed that the voice of God was so powerful, no mortal could hear it and survive. Wouldn’t it only be logical that if God was powerful and truly a supreme being, then the way He does things, the way He thinks is far beyond our mental capacities? Could He exist in these inexplicable scientific phenomena? Perhaps, perhaps not.
When it boils down to it, we are left with a choice. The choice to believe in God, or the choice to disbelieve. If you answered “no” in your head to any of the above questions, that is completely within your own right. Personally, as an agnostic, I believe it’s definitely possible. God, should He exist, is a being, form, energy or something completely different that we cannot, nor probably will never understand at all. This can be supported scientifically, or at least metaphysically, as one of the mathematically probable but otherwise physically impossible phenomenon.
What is my point, you may ask. It’s simple. It’s that there is a way to reconcile conflicting ideas in your head. Additionally (and this is asking much of a human being, known for its intense hunger for answers), one must sometimes be content with simply not knowing.
Whatever your beliefs, this is the last thing I ask of you. According to the Bible, when a woman was being stoned for adultery, Jesus Christ intervened on her behalf. “But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, ‘If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.’”—John 8:7. Over-quoted? Incredibly so. But true all the same. Keep an open mind, try to understand as well as be understood, and most importantly, dear reader—never stop asking questions.
Sources:
N/A, “The Bible: New International Version.”
N/A “Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, Second Edition (1999).” The National Academy of Sciences
Pickover, Clifford A. “Surfing Through Hyperspace: Understanding Higher Universes in Six Easy Lessons.” 1999. Oxford University Press.
Theobald, Douglas L. “29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent.” The Talk.Origins Archive. Vers. 2.87. 2006. 26 April, 2006. <link>
Wilkins, John. “Macroevolution.” The Talk.Origins Archive. 1997. 26 April, 2006. link
WAR: Will there ever be peace between Science and Religion?
A Theological Paper by Carly aka Cinders
Ever since man looked up to the heavens and asked those profound questions “Why? How?” science and religion have disagreed with each other. But should they? Is there a way to reconcile scientific theories with religion?
Upon reading the articles by Thomas Baxter and Robert Comer in the spring 2006 edition of CAC’s The Eagle, I found interesting points in both. Intrigued by the articles, I did my own research into not only biology, evolution and religion, but also physics and metaphysics. To clarify, I am not trying to prove or disprove the evolutionary theory, merely correct some misconceptions in the articles, answer a few questions asked (albeit their original rhetorical nature), and provide a personal theory of how religion and science may find a place to agree.
First of all, before listing the good points in the articles, allow me to point out a few discrepancies. Tom Baxter provides little hard evidence for his argument for evolution, which honestly only exists in the first to paragraphs. However, the rest of the article is a fine opinion on religion in science, and reminds me of many conversations I myself have had. Might I add that his question, “How many times must we prove a theory until it becomes fact?” is a simple one to answer—until beyond the shadow of a doubt. One may ask a similar question concerning the Big Bang Theory, which has much evidence to support it, however as there is no way of knowing or understanding for sure exactly what happened in the past, it remains a theory. Why? Because there may be other possibilities that agree with the evidence that we have not yet conceived or uncovered. While evolution is still a respectable and logical theory for our time, it is not the only possibility. Consider scientific history like written history: it, too, can be one-sided, as other evidence might have disappeared over time. However, Douglas Theobald explains that, “Though science formally cannot establish absolute truth, it can provide overwhelming evidence in favor of certain ideas.”
While evolution seems only an example of how science is often disproved with religious evidence in Baxter’s article, it is the main focus of Rob Comer’s, who seems to seek solely to debunk it. Props to Comer for a well thought-out and well-researched article, however some of his evidence, while factual, is slightly skewed, and he can seem a bit hypocritical. For example, he asks, “Why must science dwell only on the proven microevolution field and then assert that macro must be true as well?” and claims that “each and every evolutionary icon has been proven false.” John Wilkins answers his question in his web article, Macroevolution, “Antievolutionists argue that there has been no proof of macroevolutionary processes. However, synthesists claim that the same processes that cause within-species changes of the frequencies of alleles can be extrapolated to between species changes, so this argument fails unless some mechanism for preventing microevolution causing macroevolution is discovered.” I hope I answered his question. Also, I would like to state that using such absolute vocabulary like “each and every” was not only unnecessary and unsupported, but untrue.
To clarify to those who are confused by these terms, macroevolution is defined by Wilkins as “any evolutionary change at or above the level of species” and microevolution is defined as “any evolutionary change below the level of species.” That is, macroevolution deals with the development of a new branch off of the evolutionary tree while microevolution deals more with the branch of new alleles within species on a genetic level. In the words of Wilkins, “There is no difference between micro- and macroevolution except that genes between species usually diverge, while genes within species usually combine. The same processes that cause within-species evolution are responsible for above-species evolution, except that the processes that cause speciation include things that cannot happen to lesser groups, such as the evolution of different sexual apparatus.”
While macroevolution is still challenged, it is also still widely accepted, particularly the theory of Common Decent, a large part of the macroevolutionary theory. Dr. Theobald clearly outlines its scientific evidence in his work, 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution. Too numerous to list here, I provide an overview on Theobald’s proof of Common Decent. (Bold added for emphasis)
“Simply put, the theory of universal common descent, combined with modern biological knowledge, is used to deduce predictions. These predictions are then compared to the real world in order see how the theory fares in light of the observable evidence. In every example, it is quite possible that the predictions could be contradicted by the empirical evidence. In fact, if universal common descent were not accurate, it is highly probable that these predictions would fail. These empirically validated predictions present such strong evidence for common descent for precisely this reason.”
As this work was updated March 29 of this year, I would consider this list of evidence up-to-date information which has not yet been disproved. Therefore Comer’s assumption that “each and every evolutionary icon” was disproved is incorrect.
Moving on from critiquing the articles, I would like to emphasize that while there are many theories on life and its origins and progressions, there is no way to prove completely one way or the other that one theory is completely factual. That said, I request that skeptics of the religious theory retain an open mind, and that disbelievers of the evolutionary theory remain receptive to new ideas. As Comer alluded to in his article, both are based on beliefs. Whether you believe in God, or science, we still believe due to facts, logic, faith or all three.
Religion has often been a source of comfort in hard times, assurances that we are not alone, a foundation for a moral code, and, most of all, answers to the inexplicable. There is nothing wrong with religion, in fact there is everything right with it, so long as it is not used as a reason to persecute, condemn, or otherwise judge others. As Baxter mentioned, as far as religious texts go, they can be interpreted in not just two ways, but an infinite amount of ways, ranging in the extremely literal to the exceptionally metaphorical. Theologians and philosophers could sit and talk for days, as they have done, on the innumerable ways to interpret religious texts including but not limited to the Koran, Bible and Torah. There are fewer ways to interpret scientific findings. While many things in religious texts are abstract and up for interpretation, most things in science are clear and concrete, though open to falsifiability and alteration.
However, there are some instances in which science becomes abstract and religion becomes concrete. The Christian and Jewish Ten Commandments, for example, is very straight forward. And physics has theories which make Escher’s patterns almost seem possible in real life; some concepts make our head hurt trying to imagine them. Concepts like the fourth (or more!) dimension, the infinity of the universe (infinite on both a macro and micro scale), the manipulation of space and time, and indeed even the idea of time itself. Mathematics accounts for plenty of what we perceive as physical impossibilities (such as the black hole) and yet, as math tells us, they somehow exist. Do they exist on this plane? On some other? Can there be multiple universes? It is asking questions like these in which people trickle out of the physical and dribble into the metaphysical.
My proposition is: There are many things that people believe exist because their religion says it’s possible (such as Heaven, Hell, God, etc). There are many things that people believe exist because mathematics says it’s possible (such as black holes, the warping of time which is often presumed to be a constant, infinity, etc.) It is here that, in my opinion, religion and science find common ground. Could these anomalies in physics as we know it prove God’s presence to a skeptic scientist? Quite possibly. Could it be that the reason the Bible and other texts are so ambiguous be because there are some things that we, as mortals, do not have the capacity to understand? Why not? Just as there are many things in science that we try to wrap our minds around but just cannot grasp. A favorite movie of mine spoofing Catholic dogma claimed that the voice of God was so powerful, no mortal could hear it and survive. Wouldn’t it only be logical that if God was powerful and truly a supreme being, then the way He does things, the way He thinks is far beyond our mental capacities? Could He exist in these inexplicable scientific phenomena? Perhaps, perhaps not.
When it boils down to it, we are left with a choice. The choice to believe in God, or the choice to disbelieve. If you answered “no” in your head to any of the above questions, that is completely within your own right. Personally, as an agnostic, I believe it’s definitely possible. God, should He exist, is a being, form, energy or something completely different that we cannot, nor probably will never understand at all. This can be supported scientifically, or at least metaphysically, as one of the mathematically probable but otherwise physically impossible phenomenon.
What is my point, you may ask. It’s simple. It’s that there is a way to reconcile conflicting ideas in your head. Additionally (and this is asking much of a human being, known for its intense hunger for answers), one must sometimes be content with simply not knowing.
Whatever your beliefs, this is the last thing I ask of you. According to the Bible, when a woman was being stoned for adultery, Jesus Christ intervened on her behalf. “But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, ‘If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.’”—John 8:7. Over-quoted? Incredibly so. But true all the same. Keep an open mind, try to understand as well as be understood, and most importantly, dear reader—never stop asking questions.
Sources:
N/A, “The Bible: New International Version.”
N/A “Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, Second Edition (1999).” The National Academy of Sciences
Pickover, Clifford A. “Surfing Through Hyperspace: Understanding Higher Universes in Six Easy Lessons.” 1999. Oxford University Press.
Theobald, Douglas L. “29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent.” The Talk.Origins Archive. Vers. 2.87. 2006. 26 April, 2006. <link>
Wilkins, John. “Macroevolution.” The Talk.Origins Archive. 1997. 26 April, 2006. link
