Firstly, science as a method is much broader than just the "Evolution/ID" debate. Science as a method can be applied to almost any topic. Its a system of logic, hypothesis testing and rational analysis.
Of course I know what science is. I am majoring in Biology.
Secondly, there are many scientists (including biologists, geneticists etc) who are also Christian. So either you are making the brash claim that they are all liars OR perhaps you're wrong and they've found a way to reconcile science and faith.
Yes, I do know that there are scientists who are also Christians. Unfortunately, I rarely hear their side of the story about how they manage to reconcile faith with science. In fact, the actress who plays Amy Farrah Fowler from
The Big Bang Theory series is a neuroscientist in real life as much as she is a neurobiologist on screen. She is also a Jewish woman; one time, I saw her in a Youtube video, explaining how she could reconcile her faith with science, and she said that science could explain how something happened and religion could explain
why.
Thirdly, I'm not sure how you're defining evolution. To me, evolution is simply the changing frequency of a set of genes in a population. As the gene frequencies change, so does the population. As far as I can tell, there is nothing alarming or anti-Christian about evolution. Natural selection on the other hand is when evolutionary biology goes from observing a phenomenon (evolution) to giving it a cause. And natural selection is, by definition, not supernatural. So natural selection and Christianity are ultimately at odds with each other because natural selection is inherently atheistic.
Influenced by Sean B. Carroll from
Endless Forms Most Beautiful, I am going to add that evolution is more than a change of frequency of alleles in the gene pool. Evolution of form can be described or defined as change in development. This definition of evolution would emphasize the importance of embryology.
I am taking a class in Evolution right now, and from what I have learned, I think I can explain the difference between natural selection and evolution. Evolution is the change of frequency of alleles in the population. It acts on genotypes. Natural selection, on the other hand, acts on phenotypes. Just because there is a genetic mutation doesn't mean it would be selected against; the mutation may be silent/neutral. Natural selection is as unsupernatural as evolution or plumbing. In the history of evolutionary thought, there is a concept called
methodological naturalism, which is the strategy to trying to explain the world based solely on natural phenomena, and this strategy is fundamental to the scientific method. It's called "naturalism", because it focuses on the natural more than the supernatural. It's called "methodological", because the strategy provides a method or procedure for seeking scientific explanations of the world. Although philosophers began using methodological naturalism as early as 600 BC, this approach would not be solidified or universally embraced until the eighteenth century.
There were many famous scientists in the past who were also devout Christians. There is nothing wrong with being a Christian and being a scientist; however, there is something wrong with explaining natural phenomena with the supernatural. William Paley was admired by Charles Darwin for contributing to the field of science; unfortunately, there was something missing in Paley's theory: that it resorted to the supernatural and explained that nature was a careful watchmaker and designer. Darwin, though he admired Paley's work, thought that nature must be described by natural means alone.
On the other hand, like you said and what Mayim Bialik (actress who plays as Amy Farrah Fowler) said, perhaps the only way to reconcile one's religious beliefs with science is to say that science explains the how while religion explains the why and the meaning of life. In other words, what do evolution and natural selection mean to the individual?
That is the philosophical question. Unfortunately, I think some Christians cannot reconcile their faith based on what they perceive evolution and natural selection to imply. I think they believe that evolution and natural selection imply that there is no god, and everything natural governs all of life - where is the room for God or an intelligent agent? Furthermore, the simple idea of a man's being descended from earlier living things seems to be contradictory to the concept of original sin. If Adam and Eve did not literally exist, then where would sin come from? I wish I know the answer, but unfortunately, I don't, and I am afraid I never will. Paradoxically, I believe that sin is a way to explain why people suffer in the world and what people can do about it.
But is natural selection true? Its much more difficult to prove because there can always be another actor driving it that is either yet undiscovered, or non-natural. This then simply becomes a debate about whether supernatural causes exist or not. Do you believe supernatural causes exist? Do you believe the supernatural exists? And thusly we are no longer talking about evolution or science at all but now are strictly talking about philosophy and metaphysics. How do you prove a cause is natural without assuming a materialist universe? If you assume a materialist universe then natural selection is "obvious", but when talking to Christians you cannot assume a materialist universe in the discussion because the Christians believe in supernatural causes.
Sorry, but I am not sure how natural selection has to do with the existence of God. Yes, I do agree that the question of God's existence is a metaphysical/philosophical question, but the natural selection is just a mechanism that acts on phenotypes in order to allow the best fit phenotypes to adapt to the environment. A response to natural selection results in a change in genotypes in a population, and that is evolution. Evolution and natural selection are intimately connected. Perhaps, one can just say that science is one method for learning about the world, and it uses methodological naturalism, and religion is another. Which one is more true? I don't know, but I guess you can combine them together to figure out a deeper meaning and conclude what God is really trying to say through the Bible and through nature, instead of saying that both are against the existence of God. A few years ago when I was in high school, I didn't know much about Christianity, but I had heard about the controversy since then. At that time, I liked to imagine that God created the world, and allowed evolution and natural selection to produce the diversity and unity of life we have today. I thought that would settle the debate. Apparently, I was wrong, since this debate still continues to this day.
Even if we observe genes mutating, to a Christian, it is entirely possible that these "random" mutations are in fact "orchestrated" mutations by a creator God. Observed randomness by a limited human point of view may, in reality, be a well-orchestrated pattern from a God point of view.
Yes, I suppose that is one explanation, which is perfectly valid, if it gives meaning or significance to your life. I find it comforting that there would be a God-Creator who tinkers with nature, even though such a belief is not scientific at all. Personally, I do not think it is useless. I think it gives me a lovey-dovey feeling that somehow I have a reason for being on earth, and that my existence is not arbitrary. At the same time, I fear that such a belief is too idealistic and not at all realistic, and I wonder if I am deluding myself. Reality, it seems to me, is quite scary. I hear stories from modern cosmologists about how they will predict the fate of the universe: that everything will become nothingness as the universe will go into a Big Freeze. That just gives me the goosebumps. However, a supernatural explanation is generally not allowed in science, because, like I said before, and that is repeated in my textbook, science embraces methodological naturalism. It cannot allow supernatural explanations. I am not saying that it is good or bad; I am just saying that it is one way to look at the world, from a purely naturalistic lens or scientific point of view. I suppose religion can explain the meaning of science to the individual and explain
why this all happens in nature, like you said. I suppose that is how you can reconcile.
Yes. But what if someone disagrees with me? Are they then exempt from helping the man because they hold a different set of moral or ethical beliefs?
I don't know. But "exemption" sounds like the absence of responsibility or obligation to do something. If a person disagrees with you based on a different set of moral/ethical beliefs, then I suppose that they hold no responsibility or obligation to help you. I can't imagine such a scenario would occur. One must terribly hard-hearted to ignore an injured man!
What if someone disagrees with you? Then its no longer universal...
I can't imagine such a scenario to occur. I believe that morals are universal. The trouble with moral relativism is that one cannot say that another person is morally responsible for something or guilty of something.
I'm essentially saying that even with study and understanding and learning, you still won't be morally and ethically perfect all the time. Even if you study it and learn it, there will still be those times when you're busy and can't help the person or aren't even aware that they are there because you're so wrapped up in your own head.
Indeed. Sometimes, I wish I am an awesome superhero that would be morally and ethically perfect all the time. There have been times when I was caught in a morally obscure situation, and I didn't understand who was right and who was at fault. Therefore, I blamed myself for failing at being morally perfect. With the accumulation of these types of situations stored in my memories, I sometimes wish that I could have a magical wand that could somehow make all those memories disappear, even though I am afraid of what such a wand can do as a side effect. The problem with disappearing memories is that I would have nothing to rely on or learn from. I suppose you can say that my own moral imperfections, my own faults, somehow teach me by experience how to become a better person.
