Last semester I began considering whether science could answer traditionally philosophical questions. I think this is a common thought for many atheists trying to explain the nature of reality without the use of a god-function. On the other hand, monotheists whose primary ideologies rest on theological ideas readily incorporate the concept of a god into their world view. While these two states of mind appear as though they could be radically contrary, I would argue that there is an essential middle ground at which people of different religious orientations can gather. The middle ground depends primarily on an individual’s willingness to accept the possibility that their ideas about reality may be wrong. Both a theist and an atheist can hold tightly to their beliefs in a way that may hinder them from considering ideas which they think may be contrary to their own. The most fundamental issue with the discussion of evolution is the strong religious and anti-religious bias of particular biological theories when interpreting data (also known as presuppositions).
The nature of theory is commonly misunderstood. A theory is means of interpreting data in order to formulate an over arching explanation and relationship between the facts. A fact or data comes from an observable aspect of nature which is repeatable and verifiable. As a young physicist, I usually think of facts as data–direct measurements from scientific experiments. Major issues arise when a person elevates the status of a theory to that of a fact. Remember that a theory, although supported by data, can at any time be discarded or replaced when confronted by contrary data or a theory with more explanatory power. Theories are essential for the progression of science. When developing a theory, a scientist attempts to explain data in the fullest possible way. Having a theory as a foundation to work off of is important because it often highlights specific unanswered questions–a scientist’s primary driving force in an individual’s research. Currently, the theory of evolution is the prominent theory in the biological paradigm since it not only explains phenomenon, but because it also raises many questions. Therefore, it is important for scientists to appreciate the questions which evolution asks and answers, but at the same time recognize its limitations and be willing to entertain alternative explanatory theories if they prove to have greater explanatory power.
This raises yet another consideration; how much authority should we give the scientific community to determine the current paradigm? I respect biologists as a group of scientists who have devoted their lives to studying this world. If the majority of this group of people agree about one idea, who I am to say that I would know better (as a non-biologist). However, truth is never determined by majority vote. If a theist or atheist who has little to no background in biology makes sweeping conclusions about the reliability of the theory of evolution, I would urge them to have the humility to admit what they do not know and learn about the perspectives of scientists and make conclusions with assistance of others.
Hopefully these ideas spark some of your own thoughts about this topic. Some of the mistakes described above often come from people who hold religious biases towards scientific ideas. Therefore, we, as the Christian community, must not let our religious ideals keep us from respectively viewing scientific ideas.
I hold uncertainty in concepts, from evolution to the existence of God, and yet I appreciate both possibilities these ideas posit. Though evolution comes with religious conclusions for many, everyone can try to approach the issue in ways that may initially seem contrary to their beliefs, but in the end, may not.
