Tuesday, September 6, 2011

Jesus the Messiah

This is a response to an email conversation in which I was invited to comment: (I omitted the names of individuals) Thanks for allowing me to peer into this conversation. I have been watching T and K’s replies. They have both been very articulate and it is a joy to watch people discuss and disagree with respect and dignity. Without attempting to get into the midst of the dialogue on the details, I would like to add, what I hope is clarity, with regards to the philosophical issues. Basically, the problem is that we often confuse what science can do and what science cannot do. K is correct when she says, “I'm not sure the idea of a Creator even belongs in a discussion about evolutionary theory as evolutionary theory does not suggest there IS a creator, or if there ISN'T one.” This is true because science cannot address “purpose” or “design”. This is in the realm of philosophy/theology, or metaphysics. Purpose cannot be tested in a laboratory. It is not subject to experimentation or falsification. Therefore, science cannot address the question of God’s existence or even God’s involvement in an event. Now, I do agree with K’s assertion that “And there are so many unexplained (by science) phenomena in this great big amazing universe ... there must something else to it other than science,” but we must understand that such a conclusion is beyond what science is allowed to do and is a metaphysical (theological) conclusion. Thus, K, is not correct when she makes the claim “there is no "intelligence" or "grand master plan" in evolutionary theory.” This is a metaphysical claim that science cannot weigh in on. That is, science cannot affirm nor deny that statement. It is beyond science. In the same way I would note that T’s claim that most evolutionists are Atheists is ultimately irrelevant when it comes to establishing the veracity of the scientific claims. (Furthermore, I don’t think it is true. Certainly, Atheists uses evolution to support their position; but it is not true that “atheism is the natural conclusion of belief in the evolutionary theory of the origins of life”, because that is a metaphysical claim that is beyond the ability of science). The key point, which most people on both sides of this debate fail to recognize, is that the debate about God’s existence cannot be part of the scientific arena. Scientists cannot assert whether or not God exists. This debate is for the philosophers and theologians. Now I fully agree with T that the deductions of intelligent design are strong evidences for the presence of a creator. I would add that the problem of the ‘Origin of life’ appears insurmountable at this time for one who postulates that God does not exist based on the evidences of evolutionary science. In fact, to say that God does not exist based on evolutionary science is downright silly. One more tangential point: faith is never blind and irrational—at least it is not supposed to be for Christians. The Bible tells us to ‘test and approve’ God’s will. To Love God with ‘our minds’. Jesus claimed to be ‘the Truth’. PS for those of you who are interested, I will be teaching a study on Genesis 1-12 beginning Tues Sept 6 at Cornerstone Fellowship Thanks

No comments:

Post a Comment