A friend and I were discussing the ever-pervasive issue of evolution once. She was far from being a scientist herself, though that's not to suggest she wasn't respectably informed. Rather, she like many, was one who left science to people who "got it", which is why I felt quite validated when she said that she thought anti-evolutionists were basically just being offensive.
I think many scientists spend far too much time meticulously seeking to understand the natural world to then suffer the obtrusive and dogmatic opinions of a person whose sole source of information is the Bible. The truth is that scientists, like all professionals, don't like ignorant people taking shots at their profession, and tend to react emotionally, even spitefully, when they are confronted as such. It's akin to rednecks commenting on modern art, or a barely literate person critiquing fine poetry. I think of most of the discussions I've heard concerning the work of Jackson Pollock, and think they tend to parallel the evolution debate quite well.
The greater tragedies I notice in all of this are the conversations that end up not happening.
One thing I think gets ignored much to easily is the statistical ridiculousness of our world. It's an argument that has been sadly twisted to fit the ulterior motives of Christian apologists for much too long. We generally call it "the Watchmaker" argument. As it's generally presented, it says that life is possible only because our world is intricately organized to allow it. It is easily as fine-tuned as a Swiss watch. Thus, if you stumble across a watch in the wilderness, you never assume it is the product of natural processes, but rather that it is the creation of a watchmaker, and that he or someone else lost it there.
There are countless flaws in this argument, and even more flaws in the way many Christians attempt to use it. Yet, still I can't help but feel that it carries a valid point that is too rarely phrased in language that does not antagonize scientists.
Our planet is characterized by a staggering variety of fine-tuned balances. Were it a few thousand miles further or closer to the Sun life in the forms we are familiar with would have been practically impossible. Even more, were the composition of our oceans different, the percentages the elements present altered, the concentric spheres of our atmosphere changed, the pull of our moon absent . . . were anything other than it is, life would have been doubtful; if not impossible. I think we should avoid religious conclusions in regard to this, at least primarily. Yet, just in terms of pure statistics, the probability of our world existing is utterly absurd.
Now, absurdity does not in and of itself mean anything. The existentialists generally viewed absurdity as a symptom of an atheistic reality. I think it comes back to a hermeneutical question of how do we interpret the facts when we view them for themselves. We live in a world that is ornately ordered: but how? Is there some ordering factor in the universe, or are we merely the result of what amounts to the most statistically ludicrous chance happening that could ever be calculated or imagined.
I feel that both positions can be respected. I don't mean to be pejorative of those who see our universe as one ruled by blind chance. Only I cannot fathom how I happen to rest at the end of such a preposterous chain of "fortunate" accidents. I say this not because I think humanity is too dignified to be the product of chance, but rather because I think that chance has its limits. When we say that P= #, I wonder how many zeros we can tack on before we have to wonder if there is something driving it.
The leap from this "driving force" to a benevolent God is enormous. So, I don't wish to make it here. Rather I just want to say that at least to my mind, randomness, in the context of our universe, has to be self-limiting. Basically, the nature and ultimate complexity of our world prevents me from conceding that it is purely the result of random events.
My Grandpa (an agnostic) once said it this way, "Doesn't it seem more miraculous that the universe came about without God?"
Certainly. Only I don't have nearly enough faith to believe this miracle to be true. Whether this can be attributed to rationality or irrationality I think will tell each person more about their own beliefs than about my own. In the end, I believe in order . . . and I think it much too absurd to claim that it came about randomly.
