Those thoughts/estimates of the age of the universe were thought to be necessary for Darwinian evolution to have taken place. The lack of progress in the anticipated discovery of transitional forms in the fossil record, the fact of the (relatively) rapid appearance of new species in the so called “Cambrian explosion,” as well as the discovery that life is far more complex than we ever thought it to be, all weaken the evolutionary hypotheses. But don't expect the theory to disappear any time soon. The point, as Thomas Kuhn explains in his book “The Structure of Scientific Revolution,” is that the Scientific community is often very resistant to throwing out popular theories, even in the face of contrary evidence. It wasn't only the Church that resisted Galileo’s view that the earth went round the sun (rather than the other way round), it was many of the Scientists of his day. But it doesn't (didn't) matter in any case, at least not from a theological perspective.
I mean if I were to come to you and say “The earth goes round the sun therefore God does not exist,” you would I think look at me with bewilderment. Likewise when Newton discovered the law of gravity, he did not immediately renounce his (profound) faith. So why not? Well, Newton was sensible enough to realize that the discovery of a Scientific mechanism, or law, does not immediately rule out the possibility of the existence of a law giver, or a designer of the mechanism, be it evolution or big bang theories or whatever.
I am not entirely sure why so many Christians seem to be so threatened by the theories (yes plural) of the big bang. I suspect however, that it is this very same confusion, and that they have bought into the lie that a Scientific description of a mechanism somehow or other disproves the existence of a creator. The atheist who insists on empirical evidence for his (or her) views, and cites science as having proved God's non-existence needs to ask himself (herself) such questions as “If the big bang is correct, then what is the cause of it?” You cannot hold the Scientific principle of cause and effect in a closed system and not ask for the cause of the mechanism, in this case the cause of the big bang. At least you should not!
And there are many other questions that need to be asked. For example “Where does intelligence come from?” or “If it all came into being by chance, why would it make any sense to expect laws that explain things?” Why would we expect methodical study of the universe to reveal its secrets? It is surely significant that Science really only took off in cultures where there was a strong belief in an intelligent creator being. The point is that it is only with the “hypothesis” of an intelligent creator that we would expect that which is created to be intelligible!
So in the end these things have become non-issues for me. The point is that firstly I am not at all sure what parts (for example) of the theories of evolution are true. I am not as sure about what is true and what is not as many on both sides of the equation would have us believe. But secondly what I do believe is anything that turns out to be true will be nothing more than a description of the mechanism He employed (set in motion?). To say it another way, I am not invested in the truth of falsity of the various forms of the theory of evolution. My faith does not rise or fall on these issues. On the other hand I do have enough confidence in the Scientific method to believe that in the end the truth will prevail on any particular issue. It just might take a long time for that to happen, however. And in the meantime since the existence of a moral God tends to put a damper on some of the things we might want to do, I am also sure we will find other ways to try to explain away His existence.
No comments:
Post a Comment