When I first started this blog site I tried to keep the topics to theology. I was successful for the most part. But, my second favorite topic, evolution, just creeps in now and again. I am fully confident that those uninterested in evolution are capable of skipping posts.
A fascinating and controversial scientific area is ape evolution. Let the arguments fly.
The Dawn Monkey by Chris Beard is an amazing introduction to ape evolution and its associated scientific controversies.
A less technical, but award winning book, is The Ape in the Tree by Alan Walker and Pat Shipman. The book is a nice introduction to how evolutionary science is done.
Both books cited above are great reads, and provide a great education on the topic.
Many paleoanthropologists believe that apes arose in Africa about 22 to 12 million years ago. But few ape fossils have been found in Africa during that time period. Interestingly, many "Miocene" ape fossils have been found in India, Pakistan, Spain, and Hungry to name just a few countries. Some "heretical" scientists have proposed that apes evolved in Eurasia and then migrated to Africa!!!
It's one of those inevitably fun debates that arise out of the scientific study of evolution.
2 comments:
I'm interested in knowing what - as a theologian - you think you are "obligated" to believe/conclude or not believe/conclude regarding evolution AND ALSO in knowing what - as a scientist - you think you are "compelled" to believe or not believe regarding man's creation. Most of us are to some degree a mix of scientist and religionist. I find it insightful to learn how others balance both.
People who reject evolution surely are not arguing that "evolving" (i.e., change in species) does not occur over time; this is clearly observable. Rather, they argue against evolutionists' conclusions that violate their theology. It seems to me that there is an important difference between "explaining" evolution and "explaining away" evolution.
People who advocate for evolution hopefully are not arguing that science definitively leaves no room for a Creator. Rather, they argue that we cannot ignore evidence or explain away such evidence based on faith alone or by using weak logic (Occam's razor or the law of parsimony). We are not obligated, they hold, to believe anything that is not true (to paraphrase the chemist Henry Eyring).
As I age, I learn much more by understanding the differences between religion and science than by insisting on reconciling all the differences. My religion can be informed by science and my science can be enlightened by religion.
As always, Dee, you ask deep and insightful questions.
No one knows precisely how evolution proceeded over the approximately 65 millions years of primate evolution. Accounting for ape evolution is hard enough, let alone human evolution. But, I deeply believe in the fundamentals of evolution, as evidenced in the fossil record as well as the DNA record.
At the same time, I believe in God, the fundamental messages of the scriptures, and in the Church.
I try really hard to let the scientific data speak to me. Nature may mumble, but I don't think it lies.
I feel blessed to have two sources of truth in my life: religion and science. But, I must admit that I often have to segregate the two. To me, the two domains address largely separate issues.
Church authorities often do NOT seem to be keen on evolution, but at the same time they teach me to tell the TRUTH.
My fundamental belief in telling the truth, helps me navigate through evolutionary science. Thus, I feel no need to apologize for teaching evolution at my university, as well as referring to it on this blog (every so often).
I am very much against Richard Dawkin's promotion of atheism via evolution. I think that is a vast misuse of science. Evolutionary science knows nothing of God. Therefore, science must remain neutral.
I don't think we evolutionists should merely pretend evolution is not important. It is NOT important to theology but it is important to LIFE.
For example, evolution is critical to the understanding of genetics, forensics, agricultural science, conservation, and medical research.
Several LDS scholars, especially in the blog world, have argued vehemently against evolution. Fine. I am NOT persuaded by their arguments.
I am NOT able to give a harmonious account of how Adam & Eve fit into the fossil record. Actually, I feel no need to do so. Instead, I feel a need to understand that we live a a fallen world subject to physical principles. An essential physical principle, in my mind, is natural selection.
Our religion is the MOST important institution on earth. It need never fear the findings of science. Science is the art of making arguments using data. Our religion is the art of understanding revelation. Someday the two will be joined, but maybe not in this lifetime.
I hope this gives you some feel for where I stand.
Post a Comment