Probability...
I watched the last episode of the PBS series "Evolution" with Bex on Monday, and discussed it at some length with Brian yesterday. Not having seen the preceding six episodes I can't comment on the series as a whole but the final episode, "What about God?" was thoroughly enjoyable; it presents in a very fair and balanced manner the views of both "camps": the Christians who deny evolution, and the scientists who embrace it. Well, that's not quite right, because there are scientists who are Christians (or vice-versa, however you want to see it!) - some are interviewed in the episode - who find no conflict between the two, or perhaps deny that the two (science and religion) even have a bearing on each other; as Brian pointed out this is very much the view held by such prominent scientists as Stephen J Gould, who in his NOMA (Non-Overlapping magisteria) hypothesis states:
"The net of science covers the empirical universe: what is it made of (fact) and why does it work this way (theory). The net of religion extends over questions of moral meaning and value."
Interesting. Then why does Genesis begin with an account of the creation? I suppose you could argue that a chapter (or two) could hardly be classed as a full creation account, certainly not when you consider that whole books have been written about the first few seconds of creation (or the big bang). But there is an interesting point here: does the fact that the Bible gives so little space over to such discussion (and even when it does "touch" on science, it doesn't tell us anything that the contemporary writers couldn't figure out for themselves - for instance, it doesn't give us an explanation of what stars are, or where the Earth is, or whether there's other life in the universe - all things that could have been put there if God is the author and intended us to have all we need in a religious and scientific way from a book) mean that man is meant (or at least permitted) to search these things out for himself? The stupendous power of our brains, and the natural curiosity we all feel about such things, certainly seems to give weight to this idea.
Yes, some say "the Bible is all we need" - that certainly seemed to be the sentiments of some of those interviewed - but is it? Look around you - what beneficial aspects of your life can you attribute to the Bible? Which to science - the "foolish" wisdom of man? Science and its child Technology certainly seem to have their place, and those who reject outright sciences claims in one area should perhaps cease to avail themselves of their glasses, or their medication, or their cars - all products of mans "foolish" wisdom which also attempts to explain, in the apparent absence of any other full explanation, how we got here. If this is "out of bounds", then what else is? And who says it's out of bounds anyway - the Bible doesn't explicitly - unless you use that blanket condemnation of Pauls quoted above.
I must admit that I'm loath to accept the claims of evolution, which seem to take God out of the picture - there's a barrier in my heart, in my mind, that stops me "going there". Yet it is a beautiful explanation, though incomplete, as any scientist would admit (I hope). I think Darwin hit the nail on the head (the "missing nail?" ;-) when he said in his final edition of "Origin of the Species", as quoted in the episode,
"There is a grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved."
So does God use evolution? I admit that the view above is the furthest I would go towards believing this: I think God must have breathed "life" into the first living thing, at least, in fact I believe he must have done a lot more. And yet many do not even grant this. They use an argument something like (in my own words - I imagine I am arguing their case here) -
"This is one universe of perhaps an infinite number of universes. This universe, and perhaps all the others, may have come into existence from nothing, expanded and contracted back to nothing, an infinite number of times over an infinite amount of time. So anything that could happen, no matter how slim the chances, will happen - has happened. If you pick up a handful of sand from the beach, you hold there the amount of stars visible to your naked eye, about 10,000 grains/stars. The total amount of stars in our universe alone, in this incarnation alone, is greater than the number of grains of sand on all the beaches in all the Earth. Most, if not all, of these stars will have planets around them - think about that. That life has arisen by chance on any of them may be as improbable as you picking out all the grains of sand on all the beaches on the world in a particular order - an order unknown to you - blindfolded; still space and time are big enough to accommodate this, because look: life, very improbably, has arisen, at least in one universe at one time - on this very planet - and evolved to intelligence".
This "argument from probability" in all probability (!) poses more questions than anything else, but it's an interesting view, isn't it?
"The net of science covers the empirical universe: what is it made of (fact) and why does it work this way (theory). The net of religion extends over questions of moral meaning and value."
Interesting. Then why does Genesis begin with an account of the creation? I suppose you could argue that a chapter (or two) could hardly be classed as a full creation account, certainly not when you consider that whole books have been written about the first few seconds of creation (or the big bang). But there is an interesting point here: does the fact that the Bible gives so little space over to such discussion (and even when it does "touch" on science, it doesn't tell us anything that the contemporary writers couldn't figure out for themselves - for instance, it doesn't give us an explanation of what stars are, or where the Earth is, or whether there's other life in the universe - all things that could have been put there if God is the author and intended us to have all we need in a religious and scientific way from a book) mean that man is meant (or at least permitted) to search these things out for himself? The stupendous power of our brains, and the natural curiosity we all feel about such things, certainly seems to give weight to this idea.
Yes, some say "the Bible is all we need" - that certainly seemed to be the sentiments of some of those interviewed - but is it? Look around you - what beneficial aspects of your life can you attribute to the Bible? Which to science - the "foolish" wisdom of man? Science and its child Technology certainly seem to have their place, and those who reject outright sciences claims in one area should perhaps cease to avail themselves of their glasses, or their medication, or their cars - all products of mans "foolish" wisdom which also attempts to explain, in the apparent absence of any other full explanation, how we got here. If this is "out of bounds", then what else is? And who says it's out of bounds anyway - the Bible doesn't explicitly - unless you use that blanket condemnation of Pauls quoted above.
I must admit that I'm loath to accept the claims of evolution, which seem to take God out of the picture - there's a barrier in my heart, in my mind, that stops me "going there". Yet it is a beautiful explanation, though incomplete, as any scientist would admit (I hope). I think Darwin hit the nail on the head (the "missing nail?" ;-) when he said in his final edition of "Origin of the Species", as quoted in the episode,
"There is a grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved."
So does God use evolution? I admit that the view above is the furthest I would go towards believing this: I think God must have breathed "life" into the first living thing, at least, in fact I believe he must have done a lot more. And yet many do not even grant this. They use an argument something like (in my own words - I imagine I am arguing their case here) -
"This is one universe of perhaps an infinite number of universes. This universe, and perhaps all the others, may have come into existence from nothing, expanded and contracted back to nothing, an infinite number of times over an infinite amount of time. So anything that could happen, no matter how slim the chances, will happen - has happened. If you pick up a handful of sand from the beach, you hold there the amount of stars visible to your naked eye, about 10,000 grains/stars. The total amount of stars in our universe alone, in this incarnation alone, is greater than the number of grains of sand on all the beaches in all the Earth. Most, if not all, of these stars will have planets around them - think about that. That life has arisen by chance on any of them may be as improbable as you picking out all the grains of sand on all the beaches on the world in a particular order - an order unknown to you - blindfolded; still space and time are big enough to accommodate this, because look: life, very improbably, has arisen, at least in one universe at one time - on this very planet - and evolved to intelligence".
This "argument from probability" in all probability (!) poses more questions than anything else, but it's an interesting view, isn't it?
posted by John Doran-Armstrong at 10:01 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home