Just an additional query from the last post: which theory holds the greatest potential for the distortion of observation – evolution or creation?
Sure, I’ll stipulate that the former is more robust in explicating phenomena and linking them together into a grand narrative.
But I’m not asking that. I am asking about the interpretation of things and events, the linkage of effects with immediate causes, and simple predictions like "Colour unclouded, orient-sapphirine, Softly suffusing from meridian height Down the still sky to the horizon-line ..." (Purgatorio, i, ll13ff).
Which does a better job at providing what people really want from science? Or, rather, which is more likely to sneak in underhanded propaganda? When it comes to the mere description of phenomena, its sequences and systems, which is more likely to insinuate interpretation? Saying that a “creature” is presented to the observer? Or saying that something is self-developing along sequential lines of complexity?
You can about guess what I think.
I think that it is best to call “biologian” those who opt for the Darwinist narrative. It is clear (to me, at least) that something has to take over the suffix of theologian. And it surely isn’t the cause of science, plain and simple.
“Biologist” is reserved for those who stick to the interpretation of phenomena, not those who boldly go into the metaphysical fields, where we used to be at play in those of the Lord.
“Biologian” is coined for those who accurately recognize God – and theology – as an insufferable claimant to the soul.
It is nice to see people like Francis Collins and Stephen Barr being nice to the Church, and actually believing what the Church says about Creedal issues like the Trinity and Salvation. But they struggle, Hercules-like, at maintaining that "Darwinian evolution is, in fact, perfectly compatible with biblical faith." That statement is at least counter-intuitive, and like many other modern apologists, they run quickly to the Blessed Augustine to help them in managing the business of counter-intuition. Collins is one more who wants to believe that God uses evolution to create. And Augustine is brought in, like a relief pitcher, to remind us that just about anything can be justified logically with the "God is outside time and space" second premise: Collins suggests that "if God is outside of nature, then He is outside of space and time. In that context, God could in the moment of creation of the universe also know every detail of the future ..."
You can guess the rest. God foreknows, "the outcome [being] entirely specified." But from our perspective, limited "by the tyranny of linear time" phenomena appear to our perception as random and undirected.
Stephen Barr, a theoretical particle physicist, avers: "With the aid of St. Augustine and C. S. Lewis, Collins knocks down one theological objection to Darwinian evolution after another."
I don't buy it. That whole Augustinian idea of foreknowledge is fishy to me, in that time is conceived as a "thing" or a dimension, and a simplistically linear one at that. I'm not into "open theism," God forbid. Rather, it seems to my neuronal epiphenomena that an event is "foreknown" by God simply because it is logoi, residing in His energies, in the eternal council of the Trinity (you know, "let Us make Man in Our Image"). That which is logoi will be realized, don't you know.
I don't know what Barr and Collins are about, or what they think they are doing. Evolution is defended by the biologians because they understand that it is doctrine. It is defended for the same reason that I defend the doctrine of the Trinity. Dawkins and I are fighting for the same pole position in the race for Man.
You might have gathered that I don't like Dawkins (at least, I don't like what he says ... I pray for the soul he doesn't believe in). And he shouldn't like me.
But at least we know what we're doing, and what we're about.