It seems that the other day an article by Richard Dawkins, the vice-president of the British Humanist Association was published arguing that creationism is based on a rejection of "scientific logic." I would like to go on record stating that I agree with most of his points. It is absolutely necessary for scientists to be able to admit that they are still unsure about certain points of their theory without being pounced upon by the rhetoric of ignorant laymen. This hampers inquiry. Science thrives on ignorance by seeking to destroy it. Legitimate Christianity is not a religion that thrives on ignorance by seeking to perpetuate it, but Dawkins points out, quite persuasively, that this is precisely what happens with the creationist establishment. Both sides of the debate need to realize that legitimate Christianity believes in the sanctity of ALL TRUTH ("all truth is God's truth") and that anyone who understands the scientific method, the basic principles of two-valued (true/false) logic, and so forth, and denies that these form at least one legitimate method of pursuing truth may be certifiably insane. John Locke's "It is impossible for the same thing both to be and not to be," or it's formalization, "~(p/\~p)" is an undeniable truth - an axiom meeting Aristotle's qualification; you can't coherently argue against it without assuming it. The world is coherent, is orderly, is governed by rules, and these rules illustrate the constancy of God!
I am, in fact, in a bind as far as origins of life. I have argued previously that "supernaturalism," when interpreted to mean that there are exceptions to the laws of nature, is contradictory to the Biblical teaching on the nature of God. As I have argued above, I believe that science is a legitimate method for the pursuit of truth. However, I also believe that the study of Scripture, in this interpretive framework is a legitimate method of pursuit of truth - in fact, the most certain method of pursuit of truth (a priori reasoning, however far that will get you, may be more certain, since our ability to interpret Scripture is ultimately dependent, at least in part, on our ability to reason, assisted though we may be by the Spirit in our reading of Scripture). Furthermore, I believe that this methodology leads to the conclusion that the planet Earth as we know it was formed from chaos (the ex nihilo creation having taken place an indefinite length of time earlier) approximately six to ten thousand years ago. I'm not satisfied with the ability of Darwinian (macro-)evolution to (a) be interpreted in a manner consistent with Scripture, or (b) explain several issues, most importantly how new genetic traits come into being or how the number of chromosome pairs is increased from one generation to the next. As I said, and as Dawkins points out, evolutionary theory's inability to explain certain issues is no argument for its ultimate inaccuracy, but it is reason to be unsatisfied with its current state and to seek either a modified form of evolutionary theory capable of answering these questions or a new theory altogether.
In short, I believe that the planet Earth as we know it was formed by God six to ten thousand years ago in a manner fully consistent with the laws of nature. Furthermore, I believe that if scientists pursue the question of origins in an unbiased fashion according to standard scientific method unhampered by the dogmatists of both camps, they will eventually come to an understanding of the question which is closer to the truth than their (or my) present understanding. And if you take nothing else away, take this: real Christians view all truth as sacred.Posted by Kenny at May 24, 2005 9:30 PM
Return to blog.kennypearce.net