Evolution and Religion, Do They Conflict?By Dr. Rick McClatchy In my opinion they should not conflict. That is not to say that some people in the past and even in the present have not seen the two in conflict with each other. However, in my opinion the two should not conflict. I reach this conclusion because I believe that science and religion, while seeking to discover truth, are using different methodologies to discern truth and are seeking answers to different questions. The basic methodology used by science to discover truth is observation and experimentation. Religion works differently in its search for truth. It is based more upon an intuitive feeling. As a believer in the Christian tradition, my assertion that there is a God does not come from observation and experimentation. It comes from a feeling that I have about God’s presence in my life and world. Clearly such faith assertions cannot pass the muster of a scientific methodology, nor were they intended to do so. A great deal of the argument that goes on in some quarters concerning science and religion is a failure to understand the different working methodologies used by each. It is my opinion, that besides using different methodologies, that science and religion are seeking answers to a different set of questions. When we look at evolution in particular the basic questions being asked are (1) how did this universe come into existence and develop, and (2) when did it come into existence and develop the way that it did? These sorts of questions can be best answered by using the methodology of the scientific community. Theologians, on the other hand, are seeking answers to a different set of questions, namely (1) is there a being or force behind all that exist, or to say it another way, is there a creator and if so who, and (2) is there meaning or purpose in the universe and, more personally, does my life have any meaning or purpose? Answers to these questions come from intuitive feelings. Certainly, one may have reasoned answers to advocate the existence of God or even the non-existence of God, but ultimately it is a matter of faith not conclusive, hard data. In the Christian tradition the writer of Hebrews described faith this way, “faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see” (11:1). Clearly, the writer isn’t working with a scientific methodology. No scientist would give verification to ones hopes or what can’t be observed. Yet it is in this realm of the hoped for and unseen that theologians live and work. The writer of Hebrews goes on to assert, “by faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command…” (11:2). This quote shows that the writer believed the answer to the question “is there a creator?” came not through empirical data but through faith. There are different views in the Christian community than the ones that I have just expressed. One working model that a few people take is to totally reject the insight of science regarding evolution. For most of these people science, or evolution in particular, is seen at best totally flawed and at worst an enemy hostile to the faith. Most of these people employ a wooden literalism when they read creation accounts in the Bible, and believe that the only valid source of knowledge comes from the Bible. My major concern with this approach is two-fold. First, this approach fails to understand the nature of the Scripture. Scripture is not encyclopedic textbook on science. The Bible is more a collection of stories, poetry, and sayings, which express the religious convictions of a people. In my opinion the real power of the Scripture is on this higher level that speaks to the heart. Second, this approach reads the Bible with a wooden style of literalism that the writers never intended. Genesis 1-11 should be read as Old Testament parables. Another working model in the Christian community is to try and integrate or harmonize the insights of science and religion. Examples of such attempts are numerous. · Recent creation and flood geology asserts that the earth is about 4,000-12,000 years old and the geological strata are the result of the flood in Genesis (Whitcomb & Morris). · Gap theory or restitution theory argues that there is an indefinite period between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 in which the earth was affected by Satan’s fall. The remaining two chapters tell how God reconditioned or recreated the universe about 4,000-10,000 years ago (A.W. Pink & C.I. Scofield). · Age day theory believes that the days in Genesis were not 24-hour days but extended periods of time roughly corresponding to the geological epochs (James Dana & J.W. Dawson). · Revelation days or pictorial day theory maintains that the days in Genesis refer to the number of days that God told or revealed the story of creation to people, rather than creating the world in six days (Bernard Ram & A.H. Strong). · Progressive creationism argues that God created each species that at various times changed, but never did the life on this planet go back to a common source (John Newport & David Young). · Multiple gap theory believes that the six days in Genesis were 24 hour periods but the were long periods of time between each day. The basic problems with these approaches which try to integrate and harmonize the biblical and scientific material is two-fold. Like the previous approach, this one fails to understand the nature of biblical literature and still tries to read the Bible as a science textbook to varying degrees. However, the most glaring weakness is that if science and the Bible can be so easily harmonized why are all these theories so different. The wide variations suggest that it is entirely subjective. In short, I believe the final result of all this is bad science and bad biblical interpretation. I believe the best approach is to realize that science and religion are trying to answer different questions as I earlier stated. When we do this and understand the different underlying methodologies that are being used, then there is no real conflict between evolution and religion. One might be an atheist and accept evolution, and one might be a theist and accept evolution. Why? Because evolution is a matter of science, but beliefs about there being a God or not being God are in the realm of intuitive feeling or, in my theological terminology, faith.
|
|
Online since April 7, 1999
E- mail questions or comments about this web site to bprescott@mainstreambaptists.orgCopyright © 1999-2003 MAINSTREAM OKLAHOMA BAPTISTS P.O. Box 6371 Norman, OK 73070-6371 (405) 329-2266.
|