Sometimes, doing theology is like taking a gamble.
The world is changing... the future is uncertain.
And there are many voices around us, "Ride on this bandwagon" or "No, the trend is going this way. Jump on in!"
And whether we like it or not: We may probably need to make a bet. And our wager may not turn out in our favor in the future.
One example is the challenge of Darwinist evolution. By no stretch of the imagination is its influence gonna be eradicated in a generation or so.
It's still entrenched as scientific 'orthodoxy' even as folks like hugh ross, Phil Johnson, Dembski, Mike Behe etc of the Intelligent Design movement gave them a run for their money. On the other side, there are more conservative guys like Henry Morris, Duane Gish etc who insist on seven 24-hour day creation, universal flood etc
So, on whom are you gonna place the bet?
I got the impression that a good brother-friend-ally is opting for yet another option. Here's how I understand this position:
Science is about observable phenomenon. Theology is making faith statements, that by its very category, cannot be falsified or verified by science.
Life may well spring from non-life matters. Ape and man may well share the common ancestor in the grand scheme of evolution. But God may well be sovereignly guiding this whole process.
At first glance, it looks tempting because no matter what science 'proves' about how origin of life can come about through natural cause-and-effect, God is in a safe citadel, that cannot be touched.
But I'd not place my bet in this position. It reminds me of Kant's division of noumena (realm of science/reason) and phenomena (the realm of faith/theology)
My fear is that by conceding so much to Darwinism, we'd be left with 'the divine but Unnecessary Cause'. Greg Koukl put it this way:
"If I boil water till 100 degrees celcius at sea level, the water boils, churns and stirs. That's natural cause-and-effect. Now suppose I claim that there are invisible leprechauns who stir the water when the temperature reaches 100 degrees... Can you falsify my statement? No. But it's an unnecessary explanation."
So I'd rather throw my lot with Intelligent Design folks who continue to challenge Darwinists on their own ground and pray that one fine day, Paley's Watchmaker would emerge vindicated!
Comments
http://www.polkinghorne.org/
"the universe is an "open" and "flexible" system, where patterns can be seen to exist, but where "the providential aspect cannot be ruled out." But, in fact, his own faith has little to do with physics. It stems, instead, from a more personal "encounter with Christ." When asked if his exacting scientific background makes him scornful of the vagaries of theology, he responds: "Far from it. Theology is much more difficult. Physics, at least at the undergraduate level, is a subject on which the dust has settled. In theology the dust never settles."