Dawkins on Evolution

I am half way through a series of 3 documentaries by Richard Dawkins on Evolution.  I have always enjoyed his documentaries and the passion he takes to them.  In his documentries, it is interesting to watch him when talking with/observing religious fundamentalists and people involved in hoemopathy etc.  He comes across as genuinely wanting people to explain why they hold their views in the face of alternatives - and evidence that opposes their view.  You see his quizical - even surprised - face when views are espoused that he can't see the rationale, logic or evidence for - and he seems to shake his head not quite believing that people can hold such views.

In the documentary, there are scenes of him teaching older school students about evolution (a cameo teaching role) - his argument being that so little time or effort is put into teaching children at school about the force that has shaped our planet and all living things!  Even in this scene, he appears shocked at how little they know - and how confronting a number of students found the concept.  In another scene, he talks with a senior minister (Bishop) in a Church in Kenya (next to where he lived as a boy) - and again seems surprised at the atttitude of rejecting that mankind is effectively the "5th Ape".  Incindently, the Bishop spoke about his perspective very well - without the usual defensive or aggressive response Dawkins often gets from religious leaders.

Interestingly, while seeing evolution as what has shaped us as a people - he does not see it is a basis - or excuse - for a dog eat dog view of society - or a justification for the strong winning over the weak.  It was interesting to see how he looked at these notions in business and politics.  Dawkins was actually quite swayed by Sam Harris in thinking about how the notion of how morality developed in humans as our brain capacity grew - where we could almost step outside of ourselves and think through consequences in an empathetic way and not driven just by genes survival and procreation.

Dawkins wrote a book on evolution for the everyday reader "The Greatest show on Earth - the evidence for evolution".  This is a good, considered work.  His last chapter is entitled "There is Grandeur in this view of life".  He also has an appendix entitled "The History Deniers".

Why is evolution and our natural origins so threatening to many of those who believe in God?

Science versus religion - and Adam

I just read a paper I was sent called "Creation, Evolution and Christian Laypeople" by Tim Keller.  It is an interesting paper as it provides an apologetics framework for pastors as they deal with questions about the Bible and science from their parishioners or seekers.  Keller says "We (pastors) are to be a bridge between the world of scholarship and the world of the street and the pew."  I found this interesting in the light of the historical view where priests were seen as the bridge between God and the Laity....

Anyway, Keller has some insights into the nub of the problem between science and (literal Christian) religion:

1.To accept that science and religion are not fundamentally opposed, there is a need to accept that some parts of the Bible are not literal but metaphorical - but where does it stop?  And what does this do to the view of the absolute authority of the Bible? - so he argues that the writers give us clues as to how they meant their writing to be taken - and that it is a mix and in context.

2.The problem with accepting evolution as a biological process - is that then religion becomes a result of biology not from God - so he distinguishes between evolution as a biolgical process and evolution as a grand theory of everything.

3. If Adam and Eve weren't literal people, then the notion of the fall through one man and the basis for salvation becomes problematic - so he argues for scenarios of God intervening in the biological process in some way to set man apart.

4. If there was a biological evolution prior to Adam and Eve, then there was already death and suffering prior to the fall - so he argues that the "garden of eden" so to speak was set apart within this chaos - a foretaste of heaven.

While forgiving CS Lewis for seeing Adam and Eve metaphorically, Keller sees the reality of Adam as central to his Christian belief - despite a tacit acceptance of otherwise biological evolution.  He quotes a writer - Kidner - as saying: "What is quite clear....in the light of other scriptures is their doctrine that mankind is a unity, created in God's image, and fallen in Adam by one act of disobedience; and these things are strongly asserted in this understanding of God's word as on any other."  This appears to back up his own view.

Keller is very critical of Sam Harris (see previous blog) - because Sam Harris criticised the appointment of Francis Collins by saying..."Must we really entrust the future of biomedical research in the United States to a man who sincerely believes that a scientific understanding of human nature is impossible?"

His premise is that "we must interpret the book of nature by the book of God".  And herein lies the fundamental difference between the scientific approach and such a faith approach.  Science asks the questions and seeks answers which can be further tested and revised based on new knowledge.  Belief in the absolute authority and accuracy of Scripture, means that you view any new information through the lense and belief system of the scriptures.  It means walking on a tightrope where logic and rationality has to sometimes be suspended and common sense replaced by dogma.  It results in the conflicting situation of having to marry opposing scripture and having divine intervention in otherwise bioloigical processes.  Tying people in knots.

Surely truth is what even the Bible tells us "sets us free".  Truth is not threatened by honest inquiry and revision as new facts come to light.  Truth is  not about holding on to a set of premises which prevent honest inquiry.  I can't see that God would be phased at all by people honestly exploring their/His/Her world, testing, re-testing and making sense of what they find - even if it doesn't gel with what a group of people hold up to be the unassailable word of God.