Evolution vs Religion Debate

On the subject of evolution, the science vs religion debate is a deeply
polarized one. However, there was not always this schism between the two. Unfortunately today the more man grapples with trying to understand even a fraction of the cosmos he seems to get no further from the rather basic ‘Is there a God or not?’ debate. A more saner debate may be “This universe is amazing and we seem not really to be able to understand it but lets keep our hearts and minds open” – discuss.

Examining something very complicated and still coming away with the conclusion that we cannot understand it does not mean it has no creator. Rather it is better to realise we have limited capacity to understand things that are by their nature, much bigger than us with our empiric methodologies.

Maybe we do not have the appropriate devices to see God, as we are not looking through the eyes of faith, but merely a blunt microscope?

Why then do we still then expect to see Maha-Vishnu at the heart of the atom – using only these crude instruments?

I guess, the theory of evolution is half right but this is where it is dangerous. As Mary Midgley pointed out in her excellent book ‘Evolution as a Religion’ where she calls the theory “an inert piece of theoretical science”, the elevation of this theory into the domain of canonical fact has obscured some of the real issues.

Personally I believe in God, and I also believe in evolution. in the sense that life does, in a general sense, progress and move forward. However when we talk of evolution – we are talking about the evolution of what?

Is it mere atoms or dead matter?

There is no place for the eternal soul in this scientific evolutionary equation but the soul is what is actually missing from this equation. As an aside many scientists seem to want to push God out of the equation and fill that gap with themselves.

This is modern scientific atheism. Everything that is created in this world has a designer or architect. Cars, computers, operating systems and planes don’t make themselves. It is therefore sensible to abstract this knowledge out by saying that this observed logic can also apply to our universe and everything in it. Even more so when science shows us just how complex, elegant and astounding our world is. It is therefore more reasonable to say we don’t understand the architect, rather than there is no architect.

As a final note. I also don’t believe that the architect left us abandoned in this world with no clue of who he is or how to get back to him. But each buys in the market in accordance to what he can afford. We must therefore with faith move from baby infants before higher things can be understood. The state of our world is surely a plain indication of just what class mankind is currently in.

This post was sent to the Pat Kenny show during March 2008 in response to a discussion on this topic.

[Please note that I generally view doing this kind of thing as the premature onset of middle age.]