June 23, 2008

a brief history of time...of the evolution of...why i believe in creation :)

Here's a *very brief* history that started as a reply here, but updated with two quotes :) As i was linking back to the above site, the writer (Damian) has responded already so check out the discussion there :)

===========

i used to think there was no conflict between evolution and [Biblical] creation because God can work through evolution in the same way that He works through other observable laws of nature (because i'm a physicist :) ) and because even God the Son is the Word made flesh.

Then some atheist colleague friends of mine said evolution implies that there is no need for a creator God. Hence i wrote some blogs looking for loopholes in evolution, or at least in atheistic reasoning. The most "famous" would be this which still gets comments (!) and i'm honored at the opportunity to share about God. That started some months of discussion delving into the roots of God's very existence.

And then in Jan 2008 the National Academy of Sciences released "Science, Evolution and Creationism". i highlighted some excerpts in here and here.

Very briefly:


"Science can neither prove nor disprove religion."


"There is no conflict between faith and science."


"Science and religion address separate aspects of human experience. Needlessly placing science and religion in opposition reduces the potential of both to contribute to a better future."

Dr. Keith Miller’s recent essay on the Evangelical Dialogue on Evolution site entitled “Creation, Evolution and the Nature of Science” included the following statement:
"In fact, as I have argued, God is unnecessary for a scientific description, but a scientific description is not a complete description of reality."

In an interview with Christianity Today, Tim Keller, the New York pastor who wrote "The Reason for God", said:
Instead, I point out that it's a red herring to go after that before you decide whether Jesus died and rose again. Two people said [last night at a Veritas forum]: "I can't believe in Christianity, because look at the fossils." And I was trying to say, "Because you believe in evolution does this mean that Jesus Christ couldn't be raised from the dead?" One said, "No, that has nothing to do with it." If he was raised from the dead, then you have to take seriously the Scripture and you have to work on all this. If he wasn't raised from the dead, who cares about Genesis 1–11?

So personally i'm back where i started (but with much more insight and solid background than before!). i have found the Bible to be true in the matters that i can "prove" or "determine", and so i believe it in the matters that i cannot directly validate, like creation. But in the same way, as a scientist i must say that the evidence for evolution is strong.

However, there need not be any conflict. Whether God just started the Big Bang "rolling" (and left nature "unsupervised") or carefully handcrafted each species and individual (more in line with Scripture), or any other way...it is still reasonable to believe in a creator God.

[For me it is even *more reasonable* than imposing random accidents that obey ordered universal laws and "progress" ("evolve"), as atheists who believe in evolution say. If nature was really random (disordered), both "fit" and "unfit" species have equal chances of living. If the "laws of nature" are really ordered, can there not be a "supreme being" governing/imposing them? Seeing that species and individuals have varying degrees of the same trait, is it not possible that there is a "being" that is better than us humans in every other way?]

May God continue to light the way for all of us :)

1 comment:

  1. Teci,

    A great post.

    I've replied to you (at length!) back on my blog; I tried to explain how I discriminate between the parts of the bible that our lives demonstrate to be true and the parts that are written not to be literally interpreted.

    Hopefully this will help you answer your question.

    Damian

    ReplyDelete