Re: Apologetics, Genesis, and C S Lewis

David Campbell (bivalve@mailserv0.isis.unc.edu)
Thu, 3 Dec 1998 14:33:46 -0400

Moorad replied to my message,
>When I use the term "evolutionary theory" to mean a truly scientific
>theory--like theories in physics, where God plays no role. As such all sorts
>of moral questions, e.g. the Fall of Man, do not make any sense. Of course,
>if you want to make-up a hybrid "theory" by mixing science and religion, so
>be it. Evolutionary process means increase in complexity. Surely the
>reasoning ability of man is the most complex process known. Did early
>ancestors of man reason like we did? The problem with your post is that you
>mix science and religion whereas I think of them separately. God does not
>explicitly appear in any true, scientific theory. Term like humanity have
>no place in evolutionary theory. It seems that there had to be a transition
>from non-human to human. What is the mechanism for it? I tell you
>evolutionary theory gives rise to more questions than meaningful answers.

I think we may be in more agreement than I have conveyed. The scientific
evidence related to evolution tells us nothing about humanity's moral
situation. As such, it is not in conflict with the doctrine of the fall of
man. If by meaningful answers you refer to theological issues, I do not
think evolutionary theory is all that good a source of questions, in
addition to being useless for answers. It does do a good job of describing
how organisms have changed through time. I think it is important to
recognize that God is sovereign over all creation and that scientific
theories are descriptions of how God runs creation, although this primarily
affects our attitudes and has very little direct influence on what we
expect a particular experiment to do.