Logan+Week+6

Thoughts on "Finding Darwin's God"

The human race has always questioned where life originated and how we fit into that picture. Two distinct groups have addressed the issue: the Creationists and the Evolutionists. Creationists believe that nature is not self-sufficient and is carried on by God himself whereas Evolutionists believe that nature is self-sufficient and that changes within nature occur naturally. “[The Creationists] claim that the existence of life, the appearance of new species, and, most especially, the origins of mankind have not and cannot be explained by evolution or any other natural process. By denying the self-sufficiency of nature, they look for God (or at least a "designer") in the deficiencies of science. The trouble is that science, given enough time, generally explains even the most baffling things.” The Creationists have faith that God is an important factor in nature’s differences and its changes. Before, evolution could not be explained but that’s where science fits in. Darwin presented a theory of evolution that gives us a concrete explanation to the changes between species.

To many this gave a different meaning to God’s role in nature and thus gave reason for “nonbelievers” to support evolutionists. Evolutionary thought can oppose religious beliefs: “If we accept a //lack// of scientific explanation as proof for God's existence, simple logic would dictate that we would have to regard a successful scientific explanation as an argument //against// God.” In this case, evolution is indeed an argument against God but it is not necessarily true that scientific explanation is. If you take a more interpretive look at the Bible (as Galileo would), you could argue that scientific explanation is not an argument against God and can in fact support it. We shouldn’t be able to say that we fully understand the word of God just through the Bible. I don’t think the goal of the evolutionists is to disagree with the word of God but are just not quite satisfied with the words of the creationists.

Miller believes that both faith and reason should coexist in harmony: “If faith and reason are both gifts from God, then they should play complementary, not conflicting, roles in our struggle to understand the world around us. As a scientist and as a Christian, that is exactly what I believe. True knowledge comes only from a combination of faith and reason.” I particularly like what Miller says. If God did indeed create this world, than why would scientific explanation disagree with the word of God? Now if we accept this to be true, than how come science (in this case evolution) disagrees? The easiest explanation would be that the scientific theory of evolution is wrong or just misunderstood. In fact, God may not be as prominent in nature because he has made nature itself self-sufficient. “To some, the murderous reality of human nature is proof that God is absent or dead. The same reasoning would find God missing from the unpredictable branchings of an evolutionary tree.” If you argue that nature is self-sufficient and that God “got it right the first time” then God would seem to be missing from our world. However, it makes more sense this way because this gives us the freedom to choose when faced with good or evil. It also makes us more independent instead of being God’s “puppets.”

God would not create a world of restriction, “authentic love requires freedom, not manipulation. Such freedom is best supplied by the open contingency of evolution.” According to Miller, evolution is a way of supplying freedom to humans and life itself. A dictated and patterned way of life could not allow an “authentic love” or true faith to develop. Now what if God’s role was more prominent in our lives? You would think that people would have more faith, but that is not the case. “If a string of constant miracles were needed for each turn of the cell cycle or each flicker of a cilium, the hand of God would be written directly into every living thing - his presence at the edge of the human sandbox would be unmistakable. Such findings might confirm our faith, but they would also undermine our independence. How could we fairly choose between God and man when the presence and the power of the divine so obviously and so literally controlled our every breath?” As Miller explains, there would be no freedom to choose to follow in God’s path or not. In this sense, faith would have the ability to turn into reason because it would be so evident around us. Therefore, evolution is essential to having faith.