There are many scientific theories, such as quantum theory, the theory of relativity, the "Big-Bang" theory and a host of others, but the one best-known to the broader public is, of course, the theory of evolution, for obvious reasons. First, the idea is easily understood by the person of average education and without specialist knowledge. And secondly, of course, because it touches on the big questions of "Where are we from?" and "Why?"
It is no secret that this theory gave "scientific" cover to those who chose the materialistic point of view to confront or push aside the implacable fact of existence. (You even get people in the coffee shops of outlying villages who want to abuse believers in the Creator letting loose the well-worn: "Wake up! Haven't you heard that it's been proved we're descended from the apes?")
It was quite natural that the theory of evolution played a vital part in the battle of materialism with idealism. It is the main base and the last ditch for those who have chosen and fanatically support the materialistic view of life.
Of course, it is undeniable that the picture of life on earth is not stable and unchanging but full of variety and polymorphism, despite recent findings which show that stability and conservatism are deeply-rooted and closely linked to life. It is logical, that this variety cannot come from a process of maintenance but from a dynamic of continuous change and a never-ending flow of everything as it was concentrated and crystallised in the well-known phrase of Heracleitus "all things are in constant flux"4.1a.
Going a step farther in this thought, is the idea that perhaps the more complicated forms came from simpler ones, pushed along this way by some blind "laws" as, for example, the principle of natural selection. Darwin was the one who first dreamed up this idea: shaped it, refined it and had the nerve to publish it. It was very brave of him because the Church of the time had very fixed ideas and interpreted the Bible literally concerning the Creation of the World.
It is a fact that the first reaction to Darwin's theory was a shock for believers and embarrassment for non-believers. It was very difficult for the haughty human to accept that his ancestor was an ape. (Nowadays, of course, I hasten to add, the up-to-date opinion is that instead of an ape we must think of some other type of primate). Though it is common knowledge that our flesh, blood, and our bodies in general are very similar to that of animals and mammals (quite natural since we were all made of the same material, "earth"), it was difficult to accept that even for the material part, the human being was the result of a uniform diachronic process.
With the passing of time and on second reading of the theory it seemed that what Darwin was saying was not so terrible since, at least at first, it did not touch on the issue of man's spiritual essence. However, people slowly realised that in the description of the Creation of the World in the Bible, there is a developing course of events, which generally agrees with the findings of palaeontology and the principles of the theory of evolution. The problem is not "How" (which in the end would be mutually accepted), but "Who": "Chance and Necessity" or the "Creative Mind".
The "prevailing" and "used" by the Materialism Science, has twice stepped out of line:
a) According to the theory of Evolution, Chance and Necessity were sufficient and able to create this full of variety and polymorphism wonderful world, which we can see as the phenomenon of life. Necessity, expressed here as the law of natural selection, was the motivating power of evolution, because thanks to it, life forms which emerged by chance, but surviving in unfavourable environmental conditions, were preserved in the long chain of life, contributing to its improvement. If, on the basis of drawing conclusions "by analogy", you claim that life was created in this way, then you must also accept that the whole Universe was created the same way. This however is a sort of scientific "pilfering" since in the development of the universe before the existence of life no rules of natural selection applied. The explanation of the fact that neither mutations nor natural selection can give objective answers to the creation of atoms or high energy particles (i.e. matter), is referred to the Greek Calends41ab. Besides the (without rigorous testing) generalisation, is a very convenient practice for the human thought.
b) Chance, as creative cause of various entities or phenomena, does not easily persuade human logic. If we look for examples of situations where chance was the main, if not exclusive, factor in creation, we will see that there are not many. Stalactites and stalagmites in caves, which are the result of many centuries of "skilled" natural activity of water and some types of rocks which are chiseled for centuries by the wind, giving them shapes familiar to human memory and imagination are such examples. But although sometimes these impress with their resemblance to other things (animals, people, and many other shapes) they never persuaded human logic to ascribe the credentials of Creator to Chance. Because when people looked deeper at the stalactite or the stalagmite, or the anthropomorphic rock, they could not find anything relating to the suspicion of creative thought, design, reason or wit, in complete contrast to the structure of atoms, molecules, hypoatomic particles of the matter of the Universe, or the incredible wisdom and intelligent design they meet in the course of scientific studies in the biological substratum.
To comprehend how incompatible with human reason it is to award creative qualities to Chance, suffice to present a rather naοve and maybe "crude", but very appropriate example. Imagine a shepherd boy touching a hard object in the grass with his crook. He finds a well-made box and while looking at it he touches a button and to his amazement hears beautiful music. Thousands of thoughts pass through his mind: that the strange object is sent by God, fairies, exotic creatures, but the only thing he could never imagine is that the box was made by itself. He might be illiterate but he has not lost his reason!
We should also note a fact that has been greatly exploited by materialistic Science: to early man the "gaps" in knowledge of several natural phenomena, which seemed to be owing to "supernatural" powers, were "filled" successfully by the progress of Science. This resulted in such a feeling of euphoria and trust in human scientific abilities, so people believed that it was only a matter of time until we would have a full and complete knowledge of the natural world, not only its structure and functional mechanisms but also the cause of its creation. This flattery of the human egoism soon "withered" and gave way to doubts and "uncertainties", which in turn became serious scientific views (see Goendel4.1b, Heisenberg4.1c), and soon they "landed" him on the level of his real capabilities.
It seems that according to human logic (which being finite, cannot "ex constructio" comprehend the infinite), the potentials of human knowledge have their limits. In these "boundaries", which according to ancient thought separate "physical" from "metaphysical" issues, we could place (without annoying and provocative acrobatics of "logic") the capability of the human mind to prove scientifically the non existence of a Creative Cause of the Universe on the one hand, and the comprehension of the "human conscience" in pure "physical" terms on the other. By this humble acceptance of the limits of our knowledge we would be closer to the astonishing "self-knowledge" of Socratic thought. These two gaps in knowledge may very possibly not be covered by the given facts of Science; and the "interface" of these two worlds (natural and supernatural) could be approached not with the help of Science but with Faith (mainly with the meaning of Trust).
The theory of Evolution can project its proposal. But everyone has the right to his opinion. If the Universe and the world where we live is the product of simple Chance or stern Necessity, I am very much afraid that in such a miserable and "emaciated" Universe there would be no room for Freedom, Creativity, Imagination, Poetry, Music and above all, Love.
Science committed a foul or breach of the rules, difficult to ascertain for someone not familiar with the subject. When science delves into a specific area and solves many problems which tortured those concerned with that area, it does not mean that it has been authorised to take the future for granted with certainty, nor can it extend its conclusions regarding the "beginning" or the "end". This extrapolation may show that it has no relationship with reality (for example, applying certain experimental findings, which were found after studies on laboratory animals, to people). Science always has its limitations.
The theory of evolution asserts that this superb reality, which we record as "human intelligence", is the product of a long evolutionary process of perfecting the human brain. And since we sufficiently comprehended the processes of the material background of this organ, we located nerve-centres, networks and pathways and managed to correct their disturbed synthesis and function, with undreamed therapeutic results for psychiatric diseases, this means that we can understand in material terms people's personalities and human conscience, in other words the unique and unrepeatable "Person" (for those who are not annoyed by Orthodox terminology). Here, like it or not, Science is jumping into strange territory. Certainly Darwin very sensibly (perhaps for personal reasons) avoided making extensions of his theory concerning metaphysical subjects, like the proposition that his theory supports the notion that there is no further need for a God-Creator. This last point would have been very well received by the then just launched Marxist theory. Indeed it was said by contemporaries that Marx himself asked for collaboration with Darwin.
That which Darwin carefully avoided, it was very difficult for his successors to mimic. The authoritarian and challenging persistence of the then state Church in having views on purely scientific matters, identified and continues to identify today (even after the admission by the "infallibles" of some mistakes) the theory of evolution with the view of denying the Creator.
This point of view was supported by the seemingly plausible, but not necessarily logical, view that since the creation of new forms of life did not need any creative intervention, but is a natural phenomenon with well-known laws and procedures, the same could be true not only for the principles of the phenomenon of life, but also for the whole universe. It is just like the selfish, overweening and high-handed conclusion reached by some people that their children are their own creations, because they are the result of very well-known and scientifically confirmed, undoubted natural processes.
For a real biologist, however materialistic, there is no need for special objectivity to show how laughable and childish this point of view is. That is why you can excuse the rejoicing and cries of admiration whenever a simple human imitation of biological procedure is made (synthesis of aminoacids in the test-tube, animal's cloning, etc.). Up until now, however, nobody had the idea of claiming that they had given life to the cloned sheep or the molecule that they produced. Man participates in the "image and likeness"4.1 of the Creator but even his Eosphoric4.2 thinking, discerns the boundaries of this participation.
Taking into consideration the overwhelming knowledge contemporary Science has provided, one with good will and humble disposal, can perceive "intuitive approaches" rather than logical conclusions. "With all boldness may speak"4.3 against the scholars who insist that inch by inch, Chance and Necessity, with the help of Time, created the miraculous organ, the human brain and that the random and aimless "game" of neuro-transmitters is the cause of the wonderful "material" spirituality. Which Chance, Necessity, Time and Natural Selection result in the 9th symphony of Beethoven, "Antigone"4.4 of Sophocles4.5 or the Parthenon?
Since we have discovered the unifying theory of the origin and creation of everything, should not we admire Beethoven, Sophocles, Pheidias4.6 and Iktinos4.7? The myths of creators are dead, long live the all-interpreting evolution? And whose Chance and Necessity products are Love and Freedom?
Science should limit itself to physical phenomena, and Religion to metaphysical. The separation between faith and knowledge must be accepted by everyone. They are two very different things, and every desirable or undesirable extension to other areas, only causes pain and confusion to us wretched people. Let us not start trying to find out who is responsible for "began to accuse"4.8. It is a fact that the ruling Church did not hold to the obligation of separate spheres of responsibility. It is no trifling matter that even now at the beginning of the twenty-first century, 2,000 schools in America teach the Biblical version of the presence of life on earth as their head-teachers understand and interpret it.
You do not have to be very objective to realise that the fanaticism of the self-styled Hercules of the Christian world-view leads to laughable goings on. If these "touched in the head" people, with their football fan mentality, had humbled themselves to the real meaning of Christianity (Love and Freedom) and tried not only to understand it but also to live it, they would have had better things to do than to torture themselves laboriously working out the age of the universe, finishing up with the admirable conclusion that it is 6,000 years old! They would never have believed or taught that God took (with his hands) soil from the earth and formed man, and then "breathed into his nostrils"4.9 (with his mouth) to give him life. Naturally, Scripture means something else when it says "He that hath ears to hear, let him hear"4.10, but they understand something else with their narrow minds. The fanaticism of these few deranged "fans" is given, well-known, wayward and, more than that, worthy of disapproval, since it damns the majority of sensible believers. What position did the Church adopt to these "extreme" people? It did not abjure the forceful (even though democratically outvoted) imposition of ideas, nor was it steadfast to the clear declaration "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which be Caesar's, and unto God the things which be God's"4.11. The Church yielded to the temptation, perhaps as an excusable defensive tactic, to be involved in scientific arguments (although they exist independently, and are sometimes so serious that may shed doubt on many principals of the theory).
The Church made the mistake, not so much because of the threat that believers might be scandalised, but more from the fear of losing authority, and thus engaged in scientific disputes and contests, playing the game out of its field.
Of course, neither should the Church have ignored the matter, proudly saying that Science was of no interest to the Church; nor should they have made their followers choose between Science and Faith. They could have said that the Church has no rivalry with Science, because the world of Faith and Science are two "un-confused", totally different things.
If Science wants to make daring leaps into the future and considers it possible that at some point progress will be so great that we will be totally enlightened as to how life and the universe work, so much so that at the same time the Creative Cause and the Reason for the Existence of this World will be found, then Science has every right to do so.
In other words, if scientific knowledge of "how" makes superfluous the metaphysical "why", it is still a subject worth discussing. Science can only be brought back to the right road with dialogue. People will be enabled to decide freely if they can see a point of view from both sides.
Of course when the scientific mind, "sated" by all the astonishing discoveries, offers the view that the idea of the Creator can be easily replaced by the Goddess of Chance, and that the view "For every house is built by some one, but the builder of all things is God"4.15 is a fanatical one distortedly planted in man's mind, then the Church could propose its own ideas. If this "God" of Science satisfies the spiritual needs of man and his inner world, completes him, gives answers to the torturing existential problems that worry him, such as the meaning of life and the harsh reality of death, then it is his choice:
Yes to the view that we come from nothing and go nowhere, with all the consequences which this view has for my relationship with my fellow men - a gathering of micro- and macro-molecules put together by chance at a particular place and time.
Or yes to the view that proposes a God Creator, who gives the freedom of a personal relationship of love not only with Him but also with "his neighbour"4.16, with whatever that means for human existence. Here there are no scientific proofs or indications - only "life experience" can present evidence for a God, Who in essence is Love, and Who in His condescension allows us to approach this conception through the community of the Persons of the Trinity.
A sermon is not sufficient here, especially one that is not abundant in "works" but only in words. The person who is searching patiently and passionately for the "pearl of great value"4.17 will not be satisfied with all the advertising and propaganda methods which are offered to him with a guarantee of genuineness. He will follow his instinct and experience and when he finds it "went and sold all that he had and bought it" 4.17.
This is the Church's great responsibility. How much does the Church help the anxious spirit of man in his anguished and painstaking search? How much does this synoptic but clear proposal of life, respond to the picture which man (older or contemporary) - then and now - has sketched of himself? Instead of genuine gold, even "in earthen vessels"4.18, he is offered a lot of gold mixed up with rust and rubbish, which will sometimes excuse the honest and sometimes pretentious aversion young people have, to this badly treated and murky treasure. If things were different, then maybe the Church would not have to concern itself with "apology"4.18a and "sermons" and would be enabled to devote itself to its main and very important purpose: the service of Love.
The New Testament, as descriptive writing, is to a greater or lesser extent known to the whole planet. Is it, however, also well-known and convincing as being a firm reality, sweet fruit of toil and the self-denial of people who practiced God's love? A love which by itself is a "sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal"4.19 if it does not embrace "the least of these my brethren"4.20?
[4.1a] Heracleitus = Greek philosopher remembered
for his cosmology, in which fire forms
the basic material principle of an orderly universe. […] The persistence of unity despite change is illustrated by Heracleitus' famous analogy of life to a river: "Upon those who step into the same rivers different and ever different waters flow down" Plato later took this doctrine to mean that all things are in constant flux, regardless of how they appear to the senses.
[4.1ab] Calends = the first day of the ancient
Roman month from which days were counted backward to the ides. As there were no Calends in the Greek calendar the phrase "ad Calendas Grecas" means "postpone indefinitely".
[4.1b] Gφdel also spelled Goedel Austrian-born
U.S. mathematician, logician, and author
of Gφdel's proof, which states that within any rigidly logical mathematical system there are propositions (or questions) that cannot be proved or disproved on the basis of the axioms within that system and that, therefore, it is uncertain that the basic axioms of arithmetic will not give rise to contradictions.
4.1c Heisenberg uncertainty principle, or
indeterminacy principle, statement, articulated
(1927) by the German physicist Werner Heisenberg, that the position and the velocity of an object cannot both be measured exactly, at the same time, even in theory. The very concepts of exact position and exact velocity together, in fact, have no meaning in nature.
[4.1]Gen. 1, 26
[4.2] see Chap. 3 [3.4]
[4.3] Act. 4, 29
[4.4] a daughter of Oedipus and Jocasta who buries
her brother Polynices' body against the
order of her uncle Creon.
[4.5] circa 496–406 b.c. Greek dramatist; ranked
with Aeschylus and Euripides as greatest
Greek dramatists; wrote Oedipus Rex, Antigone, Philoctetes, etc.
[4.6] Athenian sculptor, the artistic director of the
construction of the Parthenon.
[4.7] Greek architect, one of the most celebrated of
Athens, known for his work on the
Parthenon on the Acropolis.
[4.8] Act. 24, 2
[4.9] Gen. 2, 7
[4.10] Mat. 11, 15
[4.11] Luk. 20, 25
[4.15] Hebr. 3, 4
[4.16] Mar. 12, 33
[4.17] Mat. 13, 46
[4.18] 2 Cor. 4, 7
[4.18a] in Greek apologia (apology) implies not
admission of guilt or regret but a desire to make clear the grounds for some course, belief, or position.
[4.19] Cor. 13, 1
[4.20] Mat. 25, 40
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment