|
Discussions
between theologians and scientists on the relation between creation and the
evolutionary sciences are likely to soon enter a fascinating phase. In the
coming years we can expect new data will help resolve key debates on
convergence and the origin of life. We can also expect that an expanding list
of candidate ‘pathways’ will be proposed for the evolution of biological
functions from precursors. We may
never know exactly which path was
taken, but the percentage of evolutionary history that has to be taken ‘on
faith’ will gradually decrease. Once these pathways are developed we can begin
to make judgements on how lucky or inevitable these adaptations were.
For
the moment however, the evolutionary accounts of biological history are open to
a wide range of interpretations. As we saw in the discussion on convergence,
some scientists suggest the ‘cause’ of the biosphere should be considered
chance, but others conclude it’s due to the tracking of environmental change,
or evolutionary convergence upon a bio-friendly Earth, or the intrinsic
bio-friendliness of the universe, or all of the above. It seems clear that some
degree of contingency will remain regardless of which account prevails. We can
therefore expect future evolutionary science to provide theologians with a
shifting ‘window’ within which the likelihood of terrestrial (and intelligent)
life evolving by natural means is likely to fall. This window does not extend
all the way to ‘zero chance,’ and does not stretch to ‘100% inevitable.’ The
width of this window is currently very wide and shifts between the end points,
but with future research we can expect it to narrow and stabilise.
This
prompts important questions for theologians: where must this window fall in
order for it to be received as congruent with the doctrine of creation? Also,
what counts as evidence of providence? Is it to be found in the God-given (and
potentially bio-friendly) capacities of nature or in cases where we know nature
to be unlikely to produce a
particular result, and so are free to attribute its occurrence to God’s special
action? Critics such as Steven Weinberg have pointed out that theologians can’t
have it both ways.Nevertheless, it must be said that Christian theology is committed to two modes
of providence: general and special. The eyes of faith do claim to see God’s
actions in nature’s lawfulness and in events that conform to no pattern.
It
should now be clear why the evolution/creation ‘debate’ is so difficult to
resolve. First, the sciences do not currently present a detailed account of the
history of the evolution of life. All indications are that future scientific
accounts will continue to be expressed in terms of probabilities. At the same
time, theology can correlate a wide range of probabilistic accounts with the
doctrines of providence and creation.
Printer-friendly
| Feedback | Contributed by: Adrian Wyard
|
