27 September 2005

A Science vs. Religion Hypothetical

Okay, I've got a hypothetical for you, tied into my previous post and the latest circular screaming match over at Lee's site. I'll give you some background.

I was a devoted follower of science throughout elementary and middle schools (and, as far as I'm concerned, I continue to be to this day). I was a firm believer in evolution, having read a lot of books about dinosaurs as a kid. Near the end of my freshman year of high school, a lukewarm interest in Christianity was awakened and I was "saved", "born again", whatever you want to call it. As I began researching and learning about my new faith, I learned for the first time that there were serious scientific questions about evolution, even if they weren't purely scientific in motivation.

As I read through various information available online, I gained a stronger belief in the Bible, and I came to believe that the credibility of Darwin's theories and their subsequent development was lacking. Essentially, I decided that the evidence supporting evolutionary theory was, quite frankly, not very compelling.

Now, my position has softened a bit in the last year or so. I'm still most certainly a strong theist, and I of course believe in a theistic creation, in one way or another. As I've said before, it doesn't really matter to me whether the initial chapters of Genesis are literal or not; I believe that no matter how our universe was created, it was the work of God. At any rate, I've come to believe that if evolution actually happened, which I'm not convinced of, then it could have been used by God as a device to facilitate shifts in the wildlife inhabitation of Earth for various reasons. (I have come to believe that one should not attempt to second-guess God, as God is too smart for that.)

Darwin's book, The Origin of Species, is on my list of books that I want to eventually read. The Purpose Driven Life is not. I can't say that I've studied evolutionary theory extensively; then again, I'm not a biologist, or a historian of biology. Evolution has pretty much nothing to do with my chosen discipline; even so, the theory is a minor interest of mine, and I enjoy reading about it. I have a fascination with scientific theories of all types, even if I disagree with them in part or in total, or find them completely uncompelling.

So, here's the question: if I'm educated about evolution, understand its proposed mechanics and history, and comprehend the overall theory, yet find the evidence uncompelling and approach the whole thing with a great deal of skepticism, can I really be described as suffering from "self-imposed ignorance, religious dogma masquerading as science, and general ooga-booga spirituality"? Keep in mind, of course, that I'm not talking about folks like Fred Phelps, or Jerry Falwell, or Pat Robertson; I examined the evidence, I'll continue to examine the evidence, but I've found it insufficient to inspire a belief in the veracity of the evolutionary paradigm.

So, what do you think? Am I an example of "self-imposed ignorance"? Do I perpetrate "religious dogma masquerading as science"? Do I display "general ooga-booga spirituality"? Post it up.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home