Well, first of all not all theories are the same. There is more evidence
some theories than others. There is way more evidence for the theory of
evolution than the theory of creation. So that's why we shouldn't teach
creationism (as ICR tells it) in school anyways. At least not as a
viable theory.
Second of all evolution is both a theory and a fact. How can something
be both a theory and a fact? What's the difference anyway? Facts, or
data, are basically observations. Theories are bigger concepts of what's
going on based upon the facts. And what exactly does evolution mean?
Evolution is basically defined as change over time, but it is also
commonly defined as change over time due to natural processes. Evolution
according to the first definition is a fact and according to the second
is a theory.
We can see in the fossil record that evolution, change over time, is a
fact. We see that life has changed over time. There's no doubt about
it, these are facts. We also see certain patterns in these changes, life
changing from one thing into another. Now the fossil record doesn't say
who or what did this, it just shows that it happened, and that's why
evolution is a fact and that's why secular scientists call it that.
BUT, there is a lot of evidence that hits towards certain causes or
correlations of this change. We see that changes have a lot to do with
their environment, with changes in geology, changes in the atmosphere,
with the populatio, etc. etc. These things in themselves are facts, but
they are the basis for the theory of evolution. That life changed over
time because of natural processes by mutations and natural selection.
This is the theory. Theories can be changed, altered, rejected or
accepted. The theory of evolution might be wrong or need some altering,
BUT we can never reject the fact of evolution. This is why ICR is wrong,
and we must try and work on figuring out how life evolved. This is why
evolution is so interesting to me. I don't think our theory of evolution
is good enough yet to explain the facts that we have. There are problems
with it and we must resolve them.
Concerning how the theory of evolution relates to the Bible, I see only
one real problem. The fall of man. It isn't the fall that I'm concerned
about but the original sinless state of man. How could a sinless man
have evolved? I doesn't seem reasonably possible. But that's really the
crux of the Bible. We have fallen and Christ came to save us. Well if
we didn't fall in the first place then what's the Bible about? It just
really creates great struggles in my mind. The big problem that I see is
that there is a lot of evidence supporting the evolution of man, and that
he didn't evolve to be sinless. What does this say about the Bible
then?
Thanks Steve for your post on Augustine's views on the interpretation of
Genesis. I found that very interesting. I'd like to read more about
it. And thanks Wayne for the URLs on dating methods. I'll check them
about right away.
David.