Evolution

There is a general misunderstanding of the words "law" and "theory" as used by science. Most people believe that when a theory is proven it becomes a law. This is wrong. Scientific laws are generalized descriptions, usually expressed in mathematical terms, which describes the empirical (observable) behavior of matter. Scientific laws DESCRIBE things -- they do not EXPLAIN them.

For example, observing that items fall when dropped led to the Law of Gravity. A theory in science is the explanation for events that have been observed (laws). Scientific hypotheses and theories are our best attempts at explaining the behavior of the world -- in ways that can be tested by further experiment.

A theory in science has been "proven" -- which does not necessarily mean it is true. This is because scientific proof, (like legalistic proof) is determined by evidence. When there is insufficient evidence, scientists will consider an hypothesis unproven. Sufficient evidence will "prove" that the theory is a good explanation for what is happening. If evidence surfaces that does not agree with a theory, then scientists will revise the theory accordingly -- but they usually won't abandon the current one, even if they know it is flawed, until they have managed to think up a better explanation that agrees with the evidence.

When biologists says "Evolution has been proven", what they are really saying is that the evidence for evolution is so overwhelming that it would be illogical to believe otherwise. For example: If the evidence against a man suspected of murder was as strong as the evidence for evolution, a jury would have no choice but to convict him. Is that a guarantee he really did it? No, but it's the closest we can get to the truth with the facts we have.

I too believe in a Creator (in a slightly different way than most of my Christian brothers and sisters do -- possibly due to my Native American heritage). I believe the universe is His handiwork and I base this belief mostly upon personal, subjective evidence. I also accept the theory of evolution -- and I base this acceptance mostly upon empirical and objective evidence.

Science accepts evolution based upon objective evidence that would require the suspension of logic to deny (when one knows and understands all the evidence). As a Christian, I had to work that out for myself long ago. I'll just say this -- there are things with which I am not at peace with at midnight, but this is not one of them.

I reckon that God is a part of (both above and within) His creation (guess you just gotta be part Injun) -- which means He's had a fantastic journey.

There are word usages, logic and circumstantial problems associated with the Genesis account of creation -- even if one does not consider evolution. In such cases it may be wise to consider the possibility that there are things we worry about more than God did, or He would have made them less debateable. Without such an approach, there are a lot of things we should probably discuss -- like handling snakes and drinking poison.

Does there being a Sabbath require a literal seven days of creation? Perhaps -- but other explanations can be suggested. To deny empirical scientific evidence because of debateable scripture is to take the same stand the church took against Gallileo. Galileo was tried by the church on charges of heresy. He was accused of going against Holy Scripture by saying that the earth moved around the sun. The Church sentenced him to a life of perpetual imprisonment and penance. We (I assume you, also) now know that Galileo was right and the Church's interpretation of scripture was wrong.

Thank goodness scientists are not in personal danger for their studies today like Galileo was -- for they are as certain of their evolutionary principles as Galileo was of his celestial ones. I suspect that future Christians will probably have no more of a problem with geological timescales and the concept of evolution than present Christians have today with Galileo's theories.

Without an evolutionary process, it would require a non-linear biological jump (miracle) to account for the existence of our species -- and that possibility will have to remain in the spiritual domain. A monistic world view, in which the difference between the world of the senses and the world of the spirit is an apparent one only, does not require a miracle. Much of my personal spirituality is based upon such monistic principles. However, science has no present way to quantify or qualify a monistic world view -- it does not lend itself very well to testing. Therefore, for me at least, it must remain an article of faith as opposed to (most) of the tenents of evolution -- which I accept based upon the weight of the empirical evidence.