> When I was in high school someone (can't remeber who) "explained"
> to me how evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics.
> I must admit, the argument seemed very convincing at the time.
> To my credit, I did ask myself a good question namely:
> "don't biologists understand thermodynamics?" but I wasn't mature
> enough at this time to follow through on this question... It was only 2
> or 3 weeks into my first course in thermo that I discovered the
> fallacy in the entropy argument. I came to this conclusion all
> by myself and in spite of the fact that I had a predisposition
> to favor the argument. This represented a real critical point
> in my faith adventure. I remember struggling with this for a
> long time and also struggling with Genesis and Creation and the
> whole bit. I still vividly remember the turning point. One day
> I prayed diligently for a long time. I told God that Genesis
> didn't make any sense to me but that I was willing to accept
> it all if this is what he wanted. That I was willing to be an
> utter fool to the world if this is what he wanted. The "message"
> that I received, not audible of course :-), but loud and clear
> nevertheless was that it didn't matter. It didn't matter whether
> I believed Genesis literally or not and it didn't matter whether
> I believed he created all at once or through evolution,
> "These things don't matter, follow me". This was a liberating
> experience for me and allowed me to pursue an understanding of
> evolution without being threatened by it. A really diligent pursuit
> of such knowledge was not to occur for another 15 years or so,
> but the freedom to do so was gained as an undergraduate.
>
> So, I came out of this trial in good shape. The reason for this is
> probably that my parents had graciously prepared me for it by not
> putting God in a box.
Thanks for the disclosure of something so personal. I can identify with the
"faith adventure" since I experienced much of the same. I've had two such
"turning points" in my own life -- one was as a junior in high school. I
had an interest in astronomy as a hobby and always accepted the old age of
the universe and earth -- since the astronomical evidence is so
overwhelming. I started struggling with the Genesis account and eventually
rejected evolution (while still embracing the old earth) on the basis of a
honeybee argument. The argument goes -- if evolution is true, then what
kind of bee was the first honeybee? A worker, a drone, or a queen? All
three must exist for the hive to function. At the time, I felt such simple
logic was the answer to my questions.
Several years later with my discovery of the Internet, I wondered into
talk.origins out of curiosity. What a mistake. :-) I found myself embroiled
in arguments with actual scientists who weren't quite as stupid as I had
imagined them. I was pointed to the bookstore where I first read "The Blind
Watchmaker." That was the beginning of the second "faith adventure." After
reading, arguing, and reading other materials, I came to the conclusion
that the evidence for evolution is as overwhelming as the astronomical
evidence for the old age of the universe.
So why the struggle? Because the story of Eden is so central to the
Christian theology of redemption. I always had recognized that, and had
also recognized the threat evolution poses to that theology. If there was
no literal Eden, and no choice by Adam and Eve to disobey, then why is the
redemptive power of Christ's blood even necessary?
If a less literal Genesis interpretation is embraced, and man evolved --
then at some point a transition occurred from animal to a soul-endowed,
God-aware human. This transition is problematic for me to understand
theologically, since it begs the question of why God would choose to
"create" man through use of a method that seems predicated on selfishness
and violence. And similarly, why would a God require us to be redeemed from
a nature that we were predestined to inherit from the very act of our
creation?
These are the questions with which I now struggle. My current view is that
God (if He exists) gave me a mind. Therefore, I will try to learn of God's
true nature with all of my faculties. I refuse to ignore science for the
sake of my faith, and on the other hand, I also refuse to ignore the
scientific implications of my faith. Brian seems to have been able to
adequately separate the two in his mind, but I have not. The true nature of
God should be revealed in all things. If this requires a rethinking of the
Christian theology of redemption, then so be it. As an example, if Christ's
alleged words, "I am the way and the truth and the life," are true, then
perhaps the meaning is that Christ's vision of the unity of human spirit
and universal love is the "way" rather than any one religion's creeds,
theologies, or rituals.
A book I found interesting is "After Death, A New Future for Human
Consciousness" by Darryl Reanney (William Morrow & Co., 1991). I found his
discussion riveting, although I certainly don't agree with every
conclusion. Reanney attempted to use *all* of his faith, knowledge, and
experience to forge a "unified theory" of life and death. I have never seen
a reference to this book in discussions of origins and faith. I would be
interested to know how many people are familiar with his writings.
I hope I don't presume too much by this posting and that someone has found
something of interest within...
---Michael McCullochmmccullo@usit.netOak Ridge, TN