Many people do not know this and often approach me. I believe in God. I take the creation story seriously. However, I also think the theory of evolution is the right way to go. It explains all of biology well.
Take not only this error matter, but look at the whole diversity of species, and the process of population changes. Evolution is the best way to explain all aspects of biology in a coherent fashion. Without it, we grope in the dark. Scientists have attempted to disprove the theory. Yet, they have failed. It has not only been proven, it has shown, like a good scientific theory like the law of gravity (which is called a law only because it is expressed in such mathematical terms), but it has this predictive power and serves as a coherent explanation.
Nothing comes close. Even in a post-Kuhnian world of the Structures of the Scientific Revolution the problem arises only when there are large data points that do not fit the paradigm. Contrary to that, new evidence frequently fits the paradigm. Unlike Newtonian Mechanics and the ether evolution works.
So now what about the fact that Genesis is there. As I have stated to many others, and many have pointed out to me, the first two chapters are read in conflict. Yes there was some editing to make things sort of work out, but I think it is a mistake in and of itself there. Now the easy cop out for someone who finds the evidence for evolution strong is to just say, oh JEPD and the like. But, still, there is a redactor, R, who edited the volume. Whomever she is, she likely was not an idiot (okay, so it was more likely a he that did it, but I can always dream, right).
Regardless of God writing it God's self or a Redactor, there seems to be conflict within the text, and neither is so stupid to just put that there without some resolution. We cannot then take it literally. If not, what does it say?
As almost every one of my teachers has taught, it is much more about the world itself and humanity. It is about the dual nature of people. Soloveitchik himself points out between the Adam of Chapter 1, strong willed and able to create, to the Adam of Chapter 2, yearning for reaching out to others. There are numerous other ways to view it. It is about the strength of a person, infinite in potential in the image of God. Yet, Chapter 2 shows we are finite and of dust.
What I think creation then is getting to is complexities of being human. God has no interest in telling us the details of God's creation process. What it wants to reveal is that the world is ordered and that man has some sort of ability to discern that order. However, even more it wants to reveal how human nature itself is weird and messy. Through the infinite-finite distinction it wants to teach us compassion and the importance of each individual on a broader ground. By using one set of people, it wants to show us a sort of fundamental equivalency of each of us, even though there are differences.
That is how I reconcile this matter at night. I would love to hear how others do it.
No comments:
Post a Comment