Wednesday, January 11, 2006
Science, Religion, and Miracles
I read an article in the paper this morning about the “war” between science and religion, and how it is phony. That resonated with me, because I’ve never seen the problem with thinking the Creator uses evolution to develop species. The fact that there are two separate creation stories in the book of Genesis should be hint enough that those ancient tales are more metaphor than reality. Which is it? Darkness upon the void, or scooping up clay? You’ll notice that in one man gets created first out of pre-existing clay, and in the other humans come along late in the week. I’m not going to argue about which one is true, because in the literal sense I’m pretty sure it’s neither of them. As metaphors, though, they both have a lot to recommend them.
The article I read this morning told about a fellow about a generation younger than Galileo. Galileo got into all sorts of trouble by reporting his observation of objects orbiting other planets. The Pope was sympathetic, but still had to make the old man recant and stay home for the rest of his life. Too bad for Galileo. This other fellow, though is a saint, who, before being rushed through promotion to Bishop, suggested that the layers of rock visible in this planet might tell a more accurate tale of the history and origins of life than the stories found in the bible. Indeed, he was the first to suggest this radical departure from tradition, and he’s a saint today. So, where’s the beef? (So to speak.)
What really happened to Galileo wasn’t that he proposed anything counter to church doctrine, which is why the Pope sympathized with him. What he proposed was a radical departure from most people’s cherished notions of how things are, and that’s what got him in trouble. Politically the Pope had to slap him down, although his Holiness did do it as gently as possible. As for alternate histories of the planet, there were other, much more heretical theories around at the time, including one where the world was eternal, just as it is, was, and forever more shall be. Since that idea eliminates the need for a Creator, it was a lot more upsetting than that the stories in the Old Testament might have been written for simpler people in simpler times, and present a metaphorical view of the way things are.
Today, the Pope, a noted conservative in Church circles, has no issues with evolution. And why should there be? It occurs to me that once the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil was eaten, there’s no going back. Either we wallow in the mud like animals, or we figure out how things work and make the place better. Science takes the latter view, and it works very well. As the late author Isaac Asimov says in one of his early novels, the great thing about science is that it works. That is, what are the odds that the light will come on when you flip the switch? With a track record like that, science should not be dismissed just because some of the things it apparently demonstrates conflict with a dearly held vision of how things are. And it seems to me that only for people with dearly held visions of how things are, along with the unwillingness to relax and have faith, is there any conflict between science and religion.
Is it blasphemy to suggest that maybe the Creator set up the world in such a way that evolution would operate and create all the man species, current and extinct, in the world? Is the result unlikely? Of course it’s unlikely that we’d be just what we are. It’s equally unlikely that we’d be anything else as well, so what the heck? This is what came up. It’s unlikely that you’ll get dealt a royal flush without drawing any cards, but it happens. Anything at all can happen, which, given the vast amount of time available, probably means that it will, sooner or later. Darwin burned through several theories before he came upon natural selection as the origin of species, and Darwin was a religious man, but he respected what his research was telling him.
The trouble with saying that the world was created “so!” is that it’s limiting what the Creator can and has done. Any being which could create everything we know and don’t know is hardly fit to be reined in by small definitions. Consider the situation if the Creator is allowed to be whatever it needs to be: In an incredibly unlikely series of cosmic events, we have come to appreciate living in this vast and beautiful universe. And I hear people praying for miracles.
The article I read this morning told about a fellow about a generation younger than Galileo. Galileo got into all sorts of trouble by reporting his observation of objects orbiting other planets. The Pope was sympathetic, but still had to make the old man recant and stay home for the rest of his life. Too bad for Galileo. This other fellow, though is a saint, who, before being rushed through promotion to Bishop, suggested that the layers of rock visible in this planet might tell a more accurate tale of the history and origins of life than the stories found in the bible. Indeed, he was the first to suggest this radical departure from tradition, and he’s a saint today. So, where’s the beef? (So to speak.)
What really happened to Galileo wasn’t that he proposed anything counter to church doctrine, which is why the Pope sympathized with him. What he proposed was a radical departure from most people’s cherished notions of how things are, and that’s what got him in trouble. Politically the Pope had to slap him down, although his Holiness did do it as gently as possible. As for alternate histories of the planet, there were other, much more heretical theories around at the time, including one where the world was eternal, just as it is, was, and forever more shall be. Since that idea eliminates the need for a Creator, it was a lot more upsetting than that the stories in the Old Testament might have been written for simpler people in simpler times, and present a metaphorical view of the way things are.
Today, the Pope, a noted conservative in Church circles, has no issues with evolution. And why should there be? It occurs to me that once the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil was eaten, there’s no going back. Either we wallow in the mud like animals, or we figure out how things work and make the place better. Science takes the latter view, and it works very well. As the late author Isaac Asimov says in one of his early novels, the great thing about science is that it works. That is, what are the odds that the light will come on when you flip the switch? With a track record like that, science should not be dismissed just because some of the things it apparently demonstrates conflict with a dearly held vision of how things are. And it seems to me that only for people with dearly held visions of how things are, along with the unwillingness to relax and have faith, is there any conflict between science and religion.
Is it blasphemy to suggest that maybe the Creator set up the world in such a way that evolution would operate and create all the man species, current and extinct, in the world? Is the result unlikely? Of course it’s unlikely that we’d be just what we are. It’s equally unlikely that we’d be anything else as well, so what the heck? This is what came up. It’s unlikely that you’ll get dealt a royal flush without drawing any cards, but it happens. Anything at all can happen, which, given the vast amount of time available, probably means that it will, sooner or later. Darwin burned through several theories before he came upon natural selection as the origin of species, and Darwin was a religious man, but he respected what his research was telling him.
The trouble with saying that the world was created “so!” is that it’s limiting what the Creator can and has done. Any being which could create everything we know and don’t know is hardly fit to be reined in by small definitions. Consider the situation if the Creator is allowed to be whatever it needs to be: In an incredibly unlikely series of cosmic events, we have come to appreciate living in this vast and beautiful universe. And I hear people praying for miracles.
