1 problem with Evolution down, 1 to go

After a HS education and some college-level classes on biological evolution and then reading a book called Scientific Creationism (and 20+ years of religious education and thought) I found myself having two issues with evolution as I understood it:

1) on the macro level I tied it to The Big Bang and saw an inconsistency at some level with respect to the need for a "first cause" at some point. At some point I thought science had a problem with being consistent: the further one went back, the closer one got to a conclusion that a Creator of some kind was needed (who created the mass of stuff that "banged"?).

2) at the micro level I thought there were too many holes in the fossil record to back up evolution. I thought evolution theory held that over a long period of time through random mutations and natural selection new species would emerge. If that were true surely at least one species would have a fossilized record of most of the variations it went through to arrive at what they are today.

Since there was no such record that I could find for even one species- I thought the theory didn't jive.

Recently, however, from readings on Complexity theory and "Emergence" (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_Equilibrium) I've come to the belief that the fossil record might not contradict a theory of evolution- and that the education I got on evolution (and the way Darwinian evolution is taught) was wrong. The basic idea is that life is not chaotic or random- there are rules that structure life and that we all have to follow (one could suppose physics is an attempt to "discover" these rules that govern the universe).

From that initial structure- certain changes in the environment (quite possibly NOT random- but seemingly to us on the micro level) lead to very quick change and whole species developing seemingly overnight. And that is followed by long periods of seemingly no change. So- the fossil record wouldn't show a thousand different variations in a species because there weren't a thousand variations.

The bottom line on these concepts is that we aren't here by accident- based on the initial conditions everything we see at the macro level is more or less pre-determined (although there are plenty of micro happenstance) based on the structure (rules) of the universe (think physics)-although "emergence" would probably state it is pre-determined, but only identified as such from hindsight (unless one is an all-knowing entity).

All of that leads me to believe that one of my problems with evolution has died a slow death. But- does that lead me further from the concept of God? My conclusion is "no"- and actually I even feel closer to a belief in a "Creator". I somehow get the feeling that the mechanics of God are way out of my league the more I learn- but I actually think my other "problem" with evolution- the one that deals with the eventuality of inconsistency- is actually GREATER as I accept the "new" evolutionary theories. When one follows the logic trail all the way back to the beginning of the universe it seems to me that there IS design, there IS structure, there IS a purpose- based on emergence theory and punctuated equilibrium.

Why? Because everything rests on initial conditions and thus the world isn't chaotic and filled with chance- based on those concepts. And there are rules and structure to life. All of that leads me logically towards something setting those initial conditions, establishing the structure and rules, and something that could possibly figure the macro patterns that will emerge light years from now (or from the beginning) i.e., an all-knowing entity. Of course we can't prove this, but I'd argue it goes both ways (we can't prove another way either). When you factor in the fact that only a very small percentage of the universe (4%) is even detectable (see dark matter: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter) and only 22% of the rest is even indirectly detectable- it seems very likely that we may never be able to "prove" (or disprove) a Creator in this life and/or dimension.

In the end I may be framing the term evolution incorrectly. To me evolution cannot be separated with the initial conditions of the universe and what started it all (Big Bang or something else). I know they are two distinct theories, but in my overall concept of the universe it is difficult and seemingly inconsistent to separate them from the same underlying logic (that logic being either no "Designer" running things and having influence- or a Designer doing something either at the beginning or continuously (read: God). Indeed, both emergence and Complexity theories would hold that evolution at the micro biological level depends entirely on however the Universe started and the rules inherent within.

Can you have evolution and still have God? Or, more presciently: can you be consistent within the concepts of evolution as we understand them today and declare there is no God? I would argue that it would be difficult.

Red Cell Thought For December '08

There is little that differentiates the Muslim religion from the Christian religion, or any religion for that matter: at the heart of all religion is an assumption of “perfect knowledge” and “divinely-inspired truth”. As this truth cannot be tested or proven, all religions are just as probable as the next. Therefore, what really matters are the principles of a religion, and how close they conform to other religions’ principles. The assumption is that all religious teaching could be boiled down to the most commonly-accepted ideas and principles, they could be distilled through secular moral codes and legal principles, and we could come to a “close-enough” set of what are most likely the “best practices” set of ideas that everyone should follow with the idea being that all the religions can’t be wrong (there has to be some purpose to life). Outside of these principles, religions might as well throw out their ceremony, doctrine, dogma, and codes in favor of a more spiritual and personal connection with “God” and a few, well-worn principles with which to live by.

Questions for thought:

1) What makes the Christian religion different than other religions?
2) Why should Christians believe "their" absolute Truth over another religions' absolute Truth?
3) What does our belief provide us, on a practical level (if anything)?
4) Is there an argument that Christianity is much more valid than other religions (based on historical record, pragmatic efficiency, quality of principles, etc.)?
5) If an alien landed on the Earth, how would you convince it that Christianity was the Truth?
6) What is the purpose of religious ceremony?
7) Are the things that separate Presbyterian teachings from other Christian teachings that important? If some are, which ones, and why?
8) If a Moslem follows the tenets of Islam as best he/she can, do you think they will get to "heaven"? Is that something humans should even debate/talk about? Does it matter what we think?
9) If you had to imagine a "higher" purpose for our existence (why we are here on this planet) that had nothing to do with our religion, what would it be? Does religion "only" attempt to answer "the why" of it all (our purpose)? What do you say to those who argue for a "purposeless existence?
10) Is it really possible to gauge the essence of God through reading The Bible? Outside of The Bible, what other things can we use to investigate God, our religion, and our purpose on this Earth (if anything)?