The Bible Is a Parable: A Middle Ground Between Science and Religion
Yes, I thought. I remember this guy. He was one of two that had debated Frances
Collins, scientist, biologist, and head of the government‘s Genome Project in another
article that I had read. The debate was whether scientific knowledge was compatible with
religious belief. I had thought that this -Oxford | man, Dawkins, became rather shrill in
his rhetoric when he realized that he couldn‘t seem to shake his opponent‘s argument that
it was compatible, and now here he was being quoted as a most authoritative source.
-Scientific Atheists put forward two propositions as logically deducible from science
that evolution eliminates the need for a Creator, and that evolution has no ultimate goal or
This is not the science that I know, I thought. Science to me has always been a means
to an end. It‘s the study and verification of a process. It does not and cannot, as far as I
know, present evidence of what came before Creation (the physical world as we know it),
or its ultimate end as we might guess it, because each observable end seems to leave a
remnant which inevitably moves toward another end, seemingly ad infinitum (as in
chapter 19, Does History Repeat Itself?). Science seems destined to be limited by the lack
of sufficient sharpness of its instruments, with each end indicating only the limit of those
instruments‘ ability to measure what might be beyond. Scientists may hypothesize what
came before, or what lies beyond, but they would have to rely upon metaphysical
extrapolation, which by its very nature takes one beyond testable theory.
And everything about evolution implies a progression of events, no matter how
unruly, that seems to move from simplicity toward complexity. But then, as I read on
further: Manzi avers, -That known science implies either conclusion is a myth, both in
the sense of being objectively false, and also in the sense of being a story that a
community of believers tells itself in order to provide meaning and coherence to the lives
of its members. |
At first I missed the point that the author was making in this second quoted line and I
wondered, Is the author using this opinion as an expert source or as a foil for his own
(I must have been thrown off by the reference to a -community of believers. | I
immediately pictured a religious group, but a science community? Yes atheists, even the
scientific variety, are believers in something also, even though their -pitch | is
diametrically opposed to religion and its belief system.)
Then as he got into his background in Artificial Intelligence and the computer
modeling program known, as I style it, -Factory Efficiency | and how some of it mimics
the mechanics of physical evolution, I began to feel that the latter understanding was
probably the better.
He continued with how his background had led him to conclude the following.
-First it is obvious from the factory analogy that evolution does not eliminate the
problem of ultimate origins—of what, in explicitly religious terms, is called Creation.
Dawkins himself, in The Blind Watchmaker, is clear about the fact that evolution requires
pre-existing building blocks. He writes: =The physicist‘s problem is the problem of
ultimate origins and ultimate natural laws.‘ |
Once again I asked this question of myself. Where did those natural laws come from,
that scientists would search them out as if for a kind of Holy Grail, without being willing
to look beyond them to their origin?