Posted by
Michael Harris on Thursday, November 29, 2007 4:31:15 PM
Science, philosophy, and theology all pursue what ‘is’. These three pursuits seek objective truth in different realms of limited human understanding. The scientist seeks knowledge of the physical world in which we live. The philosopher strives to understand the meaning and purpose of life through reason. And the theologian contemplates the mysteries of God and God’s relationship with Man as revealed in Sacred Scripture. Each discipline compliments the others while pointing to the next in logical succession. There is no dispute between Faith and Reason except when one side or the other becomes unreasonable.
In the case of the debate surrounding evolution, for example, both sides to some extent present poorly reasoned arguments largely because one can only extrapolate the knowledge sought from the smallest fragments of the parchment that is the earth’s very long history, while speculating as to the context surrounding those fragments. Evolution is the speculative subjective opinion of some scientists based primarily on their interpretation of the evidence found in the fossil record.
Although, based on reasonable evidence, I suspect that the theory of evolution (i.e. macro-evolution) is poorly conceived, I do not discount the possibility that the basic principles asserted by evolutionary science could be true, however slim that possibility may seem at this point in the discussion. Regardless, such a theory, if viewed objectively, does not discount the existence of God as most atheists presume when asserting that since we observe seemingly random changes, 'God does not exist.' This assertion leads extremists on both sides of the argument to see an apparent contradiction between faith and science. The atheist wrongly applies a philosophical perspective to a scientific theory, while the scriptural literalist wrongly applies theological principles based on literal rather than spiritual and allegorical interpretations of the Genesis account of creation. Both groups impose a perspective that crosses the boundaries between disciplines essentially rendering legitimate scientific debate meaningless in the public arena.