I just viewed Nova’s special on the confrontation between Evolution and those in Dover, Pennsylvania who feel disenfranchised by that theory’s preeminence. It is unfortunate that many who trust their religious experience have turned to the reconciliation Intelligent Design. I will address some issues raised in that show, but my main interest is in redirecting you towards my earlier article, Evolution, as basis for mutual understanding.
First of all a language barrier between sides became clear over the terms fact and theory. In science perception rises with accuracy to fact, while inference rises to theory. Although either may yet be mistaken, they each gain strength with increasing correspondence to reality. Evolution is a strong theory, by this and by intelligent inference.
I found that theory exquisitely defended in the Nova program but for one hint of confusion. That the tree of life transcends the twigs that represent humans, amoebas, etc; does not also reduce major differences. Yes—I may add—much the same in this inanimate representation of the animate; but then, perhaps I’ve misunderstood.
Ever since Darwin first published, the world has been drawn to conclusions from his basic premise, often with devastating misses. Darwin, himself reasoned into misjudgments. He had realized that his wording, “natural selection,” was a best fit at best; but his fittest, as in survival of, became ineffable the moment it passed his lips.
In my earlier article, Evolution, I introduced a process dual to Evolution and dubbed it Actualizing Evolution. This evolution is of the plethora of ways by which we interact with ourselves and our environment. It is entwined in Darwinian Evolution, but begins in the beginning and for me attains self-consciousness somewhere in Genesis.
Is there a dialect, true to both science and religion? Or would it dull conversation on these matters? I refer you to my article, Evolution.
Still there will always be religious insights, ineffable in evolutionary terms and evolutionary insights, ineffable in religious terms. The connections are certainly there but, as in the image above, they could easily subvert more than they enlighten.
Those who support the descriptive, intelligent design, may consider a simple return to G-d.