Before all this civil liberties stuff went to pot, I used to spend a good deal of my time focusing on the evolution/creationism/intelligent design conflict. From time to time it's nice to know the issue isn't dead. Robert Wright, one of my personal favorite science/philosophy writers, has a new book out (The Evolution of God), and also published an op-ed in Times over the weekend. In it he proposes that science and religion aren't quite so far apart as they seem - if scientists can accept the notion of a higher purpose in nature, and if the faithful can allow that nature itself contains the tools and mechanisms to produce what we cavalierly refer to as miraculous, then the rest is just detail.
It's kind of a shame, because I really like Wright, but I believe he's missed the point pretty significantly on this. The people fighting tooth and nail against the concept of an evolved universe and human race aren't struggling to preserve the notion of God as some principled majestic presence, sitting back and watching creation unfold, allowing Himself to be interpreted in whatever way people feel like. That's as controversial to them as atheism. What compels these folks, on the contrary, is a world where Scripture reigns supreme, and where God acts with historical precision to make manifest a very specific Divine Plan. Wright's recipe ain't gonna do it.
That's not to say that truly unifying science and religion is impossible; far from it. But doing so in such a way that doesn't dilute either irrevocably requires a far more sophisticated theology, and as such it can't reasonably accommodate everyone. It requires a Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, or more recently, a John Haught. Read Wright, by all means, but read these guys too.
No comments:
Post a Comment