Perspectives on Origin

awakening  | posted by Brian Rhea

It goes without saying that the origin of species is a topic best left alone in mixed company. I think a lot of my Christian friends would find it mystifying to discover that I believe evolution and observational evidence of the big bang to be more convincing and accurate explanations of the Universe's beginning than the one offered by the writer of Genesis.

 

Frankly, this bums me out and I think it's time for members of both camps (Evolution and Creationism) to not only acknowledge that some common ground exists between them, but to begin to explore that space without fear of the retribution that will certainly come from their own side for crossing the picket line.

 

A bird's eye view of the debate over our origin might look something like this:

The peach area representing Hubble's Law and its implications, evidence of common descent, natural selection and so on. The green area representing evidence for Biblical inerrancy and its implications, evidence of Intelligent Design and so on.

 

The asterisk, of course, representing what both explanations require and which both sides seem to think they have cornered the market on, that being reasonably justifiable faith.

 

Regardless of whether one finds themself resting comfortably in the peach or green area of the diagram, the fact remains that once each account is followed back to the very beginning, an asterisk is required.

 

If we look at our observably expanding Universe and put time in reverse, all matter collapses in to the singularity from which we are told the Big Bang...banged. This is an explanation that produces as many questions as it does answers. Rent or read "The Elegant Universe" if you'd like more answers...and questions.

 

And as for the green area, something like the following is often offered,"Look around. Our planet, the whole Universe is so complex and complicated. What are the odds that something so intricate could've just happened?" I've heard this many times and it only needs one extra step to unravel itself. If the world is so complex that it couldn't have just happened on its own, how does it follow that it must have been created by something? The Creator being exponentially more complicated than the creation.

 

I think there are good reasons for putting one's reasonably justifiable faith in either (or both) of these areas and I wish this was the sort of conversation that could be engaged in without people being so "on guard". Unfortunately, most people who hold stridently to their view of our origin don't see the debate from the bird's eye view, but rather from a more limited perspective that looks something like this:

Each side believing they own the asterisk and that they are not even on the same plane as the other camp.

Here's to bridging the gap.

Comments

[s.o]

Brian, good word. I too would desperately hope for a "space" to discuss this and move around with it. I feel like I am at a huge lack & loss when it comes to evolution & Darwin - I have never studied it or given it much attention. Yet, one of my heroes was one of the first americans to even read his _Origin of Species_ text, and I know it was highly regarded among Thoreau and others at the time.

For a nice word on finding and living that "in between" place of faith, Thoreau says of nature:

"If we knew all the laws of Nature, we should need only one fact, or the description of one actual phenomenon, to infer all the particular results at that point. Now we know only a few laws, and our result is vitiated, not, of course, by any confusion or irregularity in Nature, but by our ignorance of essential elements in the calculation. Our notions of law and harmony are commonly confined to those instances which we detect; but the harmony which results from a far greater number of seemingly conflicting, but really concurring, laws, which we have not detected, is still more wonderful. The particular laws are as our points of view, as, to the traveller, a mountain outline varies with every step, and it has an infinite number of profiles, though absolutely but one form. Even when cleft or bored through it is not comprehended in its entireness."

[Brian Rhea]

I am not surprised to hear Thoreau observe this topic with a precision that is as accurate today as it was then.

His metaphor of the mountain is perfect; acknowledging the reality of the profile we observe, but humble in admitting that the absolute form is more than we can grasp.

[s.o]

Yes. He some has the vision or clarity to call the "seemingly conflicting" views - wonderful. He believes there is some harmony that he currently doesn't understand.
And I like how he uses the word "detect" to describe his thoughts - he is simply trying to pick up the clues that hint toward harmony.
It takes me back to something I'm sure i've mentioned here or at ohome.net ... Don Miller was talking about the movie _ I Heart Huckabees_, and how two characters were "existential detectives" that worked for hire. They were there to observe life clues - "detect." And I loved how Miller mentioned that in conjunction with the main role of a pastor to people - pastor as "existential detective" helping people look at their lives and see some harmony, however hidden. Point to clues! Use the tools that people don't have, or forget they have, to help them make some sense of things.

We have much to detect from Nature and ourselves! God is in the details, I guess.