Earth to MagicSilence, come in MagicSilence.
Do you know the difference between a miracle and science?
Do you know the difference between a doctrine of the Church that the Church herself says cannot be tested or detected or falsified by science, and science itself?
What he’s saying is the interpreting the Bible, and in particular, Christ’s words at the first Eucharist, is fundamentally the same act as interpreting historical data. Just as you could quote any number of resources to make the claim that “Evolution is the historical root of life on this planet,” he could quote any number of resources to say “Christ didn’t mean that the bread became His body.” Historical data must be interpreted, whether it’s the fossil record or the words of Christ.
Let me, at this point, state again my disagreement with you: I hold that the evolutionary processes we see working today–natural selection, speciation, the whole shebang–are not the processes that produced the great biodiversity that exists on the planet today. I freely and completely agree that those processes exist
today, as has been proven (as much as is scientifically possible), but do not accept the historical explanation that they are the processes that resulted in the large part of the world I see today.
It’s very simple. All Truth is God’s Truth, and
Truth Cannot Contradict Truth.
I don’t disagree with that.
Evolution is true,
the evidence is in.
Evolution as a present-day process is true. Evolution as a historical explanation has not (and
cannot) meet the same standard of evidence that I require of science, in part because it’s not a testable hypothesis, but also because it rests on assumptions I will not stipulate. More on this later.
Rolltide << Wow, so if there was a way to utterly PROVE it, you still wouldn’t accept it? (Not that I’m saying it’s proven beyond any doubt at this point) >>
BTW, No scientific theory is ever proved. NONE. Not the theory of gravity, not electromagnetism, not germ theory of disease, not atomic theory, not cell theory, not the theory of evolution. NONE. No theory is ever proved.
But those theories do meet the standard of evidence I require of scientific theories. Evolution, as a set of present-day processes, likewise meets that standard. Evolution, as an historical explanation of the origin of life,
does not meet that standard. It
cannot meet that standard, because it’s asking a fundamentally un-scientific question.
What science has and works with is evidence. And the evidence for macroevolution (or universal “common descent”) is indeed overwhelming, which is why I accept it,
And I find it markedly underwhelming, which is why I reject it.
I’m working now, and can’t apply the proper focus I need to explain why I find the evidence underwhelming, but I will write up such a treatise and post it (or at least link it) here. For now, a very brief explanation:
Hume showed us that induction cannot be proven by science, but must be postulated by science. For me to prove induction, I must use induction (“Induction is true becuase it’s worked in the past” is a circular argument, depending on the truth of induction to prove induction). So, even if we believe in the scientific method, we should be aware that its inductive foundation is axiomatic: it cannot be proven, it is a presumption.
That’s all find and dandy, because I like induction. I’m willing to accept it as a presumption to gain all that science has to offer me.
But that’s not the only presumption that science, in certain circumstances, makes. Another presumption that science makes is the naturalistic assumption: that all things have a natural (i.e., not supernatural) explanation. Science pretty much has to make this assumption, because the scientific method, observation, etc. cannot apply to the supernatural.
But I’m ambivalent about the naturalistic assumption. On the one hand, I know (presume, one might say
) it to be false: I know (by faith, obviously; I use the term somewhat colloquially) that the supernatural exists, and that it is active in the world. But since I understand that science nigh impossible without it, I stipulate it for the most part so that I can interact reasonably with the scientific community (not that I have any major interaction with it).
Science makes another assumption that I accept with one reservation: the homogeneity principle, that the laws of nature are consistent throughout the universe. I have no problem with that assumption, it seems reasonable to me that a consistent God’s universe would be consistent.
My one reservation regards the application of the homogeneity principle to historical data. Applying that principle to historical data means assuming not only that the laws of nature are consistent throughout the universe, but that they’re consistent throughout time, as well. But I know (again, through faith) that the universe was very different prior to the fall of Adam, becaause it was only subsequent to the fall that creation was subjected to decay, and it now groans in pain at that subjection. So here we find the scientific assumption on which all the “overwhelming evidence” for historical evolution rests: the application of the homogeneity principle across time. But I find that assumption to contradict what I know through faith, and so I reject it, and historical evolution along with it.
Historical evolution, then, is relegated to the same place in my mind as Democritus’ falling atoms or Epicurus’ swerving, falling atoms: a noble attempt to explain the world, but an attempt I disagree with. It is akin to Protestant systematic theoogies; it may be entirely internally consistent (there are some brilliant Protestant theologians out there) in its interpretation of the available data, but just as I reject Protestant theology because I have a higher standard than mere logical consistency, I reject historical evolution. Just as I reject Protestant theology because it doesn’t account for all the available data (the historical teaching of the Church, most notably), I reject historical historical evolution because it does not take into account all the available data that I accept to be data by faith: the fall, the calling of creation “good,” the entrance of death into the world by sin, etc.
That’s why you won’t find me arguing against your acceptance of historical evolution. I’m not that concerned with convincing you that your (potentially) logically consistent explanation of the historical data is wrong. The only thing I oppose, with respect to the evolution/creation debate, is the “fundamentalist mentality” that I see in many evolutionists, applying to a belief in evolution the same fervor and intolerance that fundamentalists apply to their beliefs.
(no, that’s my treatise; if it were, it’d be even longer
)
Jeremy
