Adjusting beliefs to fit the facts...

2007-08-21T13:50:00.000Z

A recent New York Times' Article: Fossils Challenge Old Evolution Theory reveals a new discovery in the fossil world: the supposedly "oldest species in our family tree, Homo habilis, evolved into Homo erectus, which then became human, Homo sapiens" ... but the discovery by "Meave Leakey, a member of a famous family of paleontologist ... suggests those two earlier species lived side-by-side about 1.5 million years ago in parts of Kenya for at least half a million years" ...

"Scientists used to think Homo sapiens evolved from Neanderthals, he said. But now we know that both species lived during the same time period and that we did not come from Neanderthals..."

And here's an excerpt from the friend who forwarded the nytimes.com link:

I think it actually is a win for the scientist side because it shows how science is very willing to reconsider its basic assumptions when evidence emerges that contradicts them. Science is a methodology, not a set of fixed beliefs. When done properly, it only means that you endorse the strongest theory available to explain the facts. If new facts show up, then you look for a new theory. That's what happened in this case.

I guess if I were deeply committed to one particular religion, I would ask myself whether I would be willing to write an article saying, "Hey everybody, there's some recent empirical evidence that shows that our beliefs may not be fully correct. So maybe we ought to adjust some of our beliefs to fit the new facts." The main reason I trust science is that it is always willing to admit it is wrong in just this way.

He will be our "mainstream scientist" voice in the argument.

Here was my response:

"You certainly have a point in questioning "our" approach ... it does seem backwards in some ways, when you're trying to ascertain something from evidence: "Hey everybody, there's some recent empirical evidence that shows that our beliefs may not be fully correct. So maybe we ought to adjust some of our beliefs to fit the new facts..."

'On the other hand, science will never fully prove any theory of our origins. So, what is one to do? Go through all of life waiting for that magic clue that will never appear? Or just never establish a belief about our origins and destiny, leaving one helplessly floating about with no firm foot to stand on? We can never know anything for sure, but I suppose, in my mind, God asks us to take the clues, the witness of His Creation as evidence of the Creator, of a God of order and design, who has a design, a purpose for our lives... and make a choice.

"As you said, neither of us are scientists. Even if we were, and investigated the depths of available research, nothing would be conclusive. You, yourself, when I mentioned that no one has a convincing theory of how chance could lead from a state of non-existence to existence, said, "Well, there my friend, head down to your local church." Since science can only attempt to postulate about some of the how's of our origins, not the why's or possibly even the who's... you, not being a scientist, have you not chosen to accept one theory? Keep in mind that we are all using the same evidence, simply attributing to it different interpretations. Evolution (in terms of Homo sapiens evolving from Homo habilis, or fish or horses..; chance somehow mutating a massive blob of nothingness into this fascinatingly ordered world where every bodily organ has a purpose) is one that has made it big in the scientific world (though seeming to slowly rupture) and the rest of the mainstream scientific community - not wanting each and all to devote their lives and work to these study of our origins - simply accept a somewhat plausible theory so as to build their theories and research in other areas. Thus, every time a text book, a thesis or study refers to these theories of evolution, of billions and billions of years ago and continue on to their way ... which, at face value, referencing endlessly, seem each time to strengthen the theory, are in reality are only, for simplicity's sake assuming as true. Maybe you endorse the big bang ... but it's still a belief. It's still a choice. And do you not base your world view on these assumptions?

"Maybe you say, "No, I do not base my world view on these assumptions." I just accept that we do not know where we came from, and simply accept that. We'll never know. Why spend any time worrying about where we came from? I ask you this. Is there a reason we are here? Or did we just happen to be here? The fact that I have an intellect, that I can reason in ways monkeys and horses and caterpillars cannot, that makes me - a human being - (in my mind, anyways) somehow different. Somehow special. As if I have a purpose, or reason for existing. As if that intellect, knowledge, wisdom, and curiosity came from somewhere. Surely not from ourselves. We did not create ourselves, did we? And if we do not care about where we came from, are we also not supposed to care about where we will go after this life? For it seems that two are connected. The pre-life, if not ordered, would suggest there is no purposeful after-life. Read: no afterlife. This is it. If this is it, then let us live every day as if there were no other days. But if there is another day... in another life, then do not our lives take on new (or a.., vs. no) meaning? A purpose? And if there is a purpose, wouldn't one want to know... or at least want to try to ascertain where we came from and where we are going, and live according to that?

"This brings us back to your question: why not be willing to change one's beliefs when the evidence points in other directions. There is evidence, interpreted, pointing in many directions. If our every day and our foundations were to change with every New York Time's article that points out a fault in a theory and redirection, when that itself may be redirected in a few days or years' time ... and none of these evidences ever giving a clear picture ... in this pattern one is forced to remain groundless. Thus, never able to move on to bigger questions of say, okay, this life does seem to have a meaning beyond today, then what is that purpose and how do I fulfill it? Is there someone beyond myself, indeed, beyond humanity that I am answerable to?"

What is the Christian's response? What is your response?

The age old debate...

2007-08-21T12:59:00.000Z

I think we, as Christians, should be able to defend ourselves. To ask ourselves the hard questions, make ourselves a little squirmy and force us to rationally think through challenges to our beliefs.

Why do we believe that Christ is the Son of God?

Why do we believe there is a God to begin with?

What's the difference between Christianity and other religions?

How dare we have the impertinence to say we are right and everyone else is wrong?

Is God fair?

What about him commanding the Israelites to destroy their entire peoples... women, children, down to the last sheep ... and then take their land. ?

How audacious to say that Creation and a Creator is the answer to that age old question...
Where did we come from?

Hopefully this blog can be a forum for questions and answers and more questions.

I've arranged the blog so all comments can be publically viewed on the main page with the hope that my voice will not be the only one sounded here.

The voices of one Christian to another

From an Atheist to a Believer.

The "mainstream" scientist to a Christian scientist

From a Bhuddist to a Christian.

Let's not be afraid to think.

Inquiries in Christian Apoligism

Adjusting beliefs to fit the facts...

The age old debate...