Thursday, December 28, 2006

Creation / Evolution

I'm going to try to be honest (and therefore controversial) on this; I tended to get asked about it a lot when I was a science teacher.

There are a few things it's important to say to start with before I focus on individual areas and why I think what I think in later posts.

Firstly, I think it's very important to say that I think that God knew what he was doing when he got people to write the Bible. So if the Bible teaches that the world was created 6000 years ago over a period of 144 hours, then that's what I believe happened. But I'm not at all convinced that that's what the Bible teaches (and I'll discuss why later). I don't think that the Bible tells us whether the world was created 6000 years ago or 14 billion years ago.

Secondly, I think it's important to say that science is a valid method, and comes up with valid answers to valid questions when done properly. Lots of religions don't teach that, but Christianity does. The traditional way of thinking about it is saying that we can know things via the book of revelation (the Bible) or the book of nature, and both of them come from God. So if the scientific evidence pointed unambiguously to the world starting 14 billion years ago (or 4.5 billion years ago, depending on whether “world” means the universe or the Earth), then that's what I believe happened. But I'm not at all convinced that the evidence for an old earth is as unambiguous as it's often presented (and I'll discuss why later). I don't think that science tells us clearly whether the universe came into existence 14 billion years ago or in the last 20 000 years.

What do I do when what I'm sure science says and what I'm sure the Bible says disagree? I'll deal with that if it ever happens, and it hasn't done so yet.

When I discuss the issue, I usually try to argue people into the middle.

For my part, I've read lots of the arguments on all four sides (old and young universe from the Bible and from science) and I think all of them display cognitive bias and none of them make their case well enough for me to agree with them. I don't think any of them deserve to win...

Interestingly, Scott Adams says much the same thing for different reasons, and then explains it again for the people who didn't understand it the first time.

5 comments:

Unknown said...

Chalk me up as "confused" on the subject. I find the whole debate frustrating because most people seem to come at it from entrenched positions.

It seems to me that Young Earth Creationism has become popular not because of good science or good theology, but in reaction to secularism in the scientific academy. That's not the same as saying it's necessarily false.

It also seems to me that "Darwinism", the evolutionary story of origins, comes from a science that does not sufficiently recognise its limitations and assumes naturalism. Again, that's not the same as saying it's necessarily false.

I haven't found much genuine discussion that is open both to the possibility of God creating however he wanted to create and open to allowing scientific investigation to take us whereever the evidence leads, and considering how the two might fit together. Most positions start out priviledging either their understanding of the science, or their understanding of the Bible, rather than allowing God's world and God's word to cast light on each other.

Anonymous said...

Hello Custard and Merry Christmas!

I am not sure Adams is making a contribution in a scientific sense to the discussion you outline at the start of your post. In both of the links you give, what he says is just his subjective feelings on the matter, surely?

AC

John said...

Happy Christmas both!

Caleb - I'm inclined to agree.

AC - I also agree that Adams isn't writing as a scientist (he isn't one) but I think he makes valid points about the nature of arguments and so on. There's too much rhetoric and not enough real science going on here.

I think he's coming at it from a kind of postmodern angle - how can he know who to trust on this when both sides appear to have vested interests and to be arguing largely from pride?

Daniel Hill said...

`What do I do when what I'm sure science says and what I'm sure the Bible says disagree? I'll deal with that if it ever happens, and it hasn't done so yet.'

Surely, Custard, if you believed with a certain credence level that the Bible taught something and with the same credence level that science taught the opposite, you'd go with the Bible rather than with science? Isn't that part of what it means to be an evangelical?

John said...

If I'm sure that science says something and that the Bible says something contraditory, it's more difficult than that, because my philosophy of science is derived from the Bible. So it would then cause interesting tensions...