the competing narratives of Evolution and Creation
Reproducing a comment I made this morning in an interesting discussion over at MassonBlog...
As for me, theologically, I can believe that evolution did a whole lot. But scientifically, Evolution (capital-E-- as a comprehensive *explanation* for the origins and development of life) is not nearly there yet. I can see some of the logic of Evolution as a *story* (i.e., a lot of hand-waving around the mechanism of evolution). But its narrative doesn't seem at all compelling through vital and reproductive organs, the origins of life, and the origins of it all.
In a word, it takes a lot of (explicit, implicit or blind) faith for *anyone* to believe in capital-E Evolution. I understand that it may require less faith to believe in that than a Creator God-- and thus, people don't believe in God. (Are you less bothered by the hand-waving of Evolution or Creation?) But for me, it would take infinitely more faith to believe the story of Evolution than the story of Creation with some/much evolution along the way.
posted by Eric Schansberg @ 10:10 AM
1 Comments
1 Comments:
In order to appreciate the faith required to believe in "E" evolution as an explanatory theory for origin of life, a truly scientific approach should take into account, first of all, the astounding complexity of biological cellular functioning; and secondly, the mathematical probability that even one of the simplest biologically active proteins (amino acid chain)necessary in carrying out such functioning (respiration, reproduction, etc) could assemble correctly by random chance.
Probability studies show it to be beyond the realm of consideration.
For me, as a person with graduate training in the sciences, this has been compelling support for the logical conclusion of Intelligent Design as a reasonable theory explaining Life.
Here's a little something on this if you are interested further.
http://kgov.com/did_life_evolve_0
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home