Evolution is a funny thing. Things always changing, I mean. Not that I believe that human beings evolved from the goo of a warm little pond, rather it is the nature of constant change I find absolutely fascinating. But that really does not nail down what I am talking about, either. What I have in mind is the evolution, or the changing nature of scientific truth itself. The evolution of scientific discovery is hailed as the most outstanding achievement in the history of mankind. Initially fueled by the scientific revolution, which lasted from 1500 to 1700, one could even say that the modern scientific era began with a concern about the position of Earth in the known galaxy.
Though his theory of planetary movement was not publicized until 1547, Nicolaus Copernicus had spent the better part of three decades describing his observations by first working from a foundational understanding the cosmos that had been laid by the great Aristotle. Aristotle’s theory of planetary configuration was viewed as a series of concentric spheres around the Earth, and it became generally accepted that Earth itself was at the center of the entire universe. Correspondingly, this Aristotelian model of Milky Way cosmology was termed the geocentric (earthcentered) model. But Copernicus wasabouttochangeallthat.Indeed, he was about to rattle the Earth to its core—he was about to cause a revolution! Society had long embraced Aristotle’s theory of Earth as the center of the universe because such a view seemed to make perfect sense. After all, as unique creatures of God, man must surely be at the center of that creation, right?
When Copernicus discovered that the geocentric model was incorrect and that the configuration of the planets was, in fact, heliocentric (sun-centered), the world exploded in protest. Most notably because it was not considered to be in line with the accepted primacy of man, and thereforetheprimacyofEarthinthe universe that God had deliberately created. What followed was much debate and even more protest. The heliocentric position eventually won the day, with later observations confirming Copernicus’s initial assumptions. The change in knowledge, however, was nothing short of a revolution, and came to be called just that—The Copernicus Revolution.
Years later, a similar case from biology provided yet another opportunity for science to showcase its tendency and necessity to constantly “evolve.” Once again, Aristotle had led the way by describing the phenomenon by which small life forms spontaneously come into being from decaying meat, or so it was believed.ThephenomenonAristotle described was adeptly termed spontaneous generation. However, and here is the fascinating thing about it all: spontaneous generation was taken to be an indisputable scientific fact for two millennia. Though occasionally challenged through the 17th and 18th centuries, the theory was not discredited until the work oftheFrenchchemistLouisPasteur andtheIrishphysicistJohnTyndall in the mid-19th century. In other words, it took over two thousand years (that’s 100 generations!) for scientists to observe and convince themselves that house fly larvae do not spontaneously generate from rotting meat! This all sounds a bit humorous to us now, but only because today “we” are so much more scientifically advanced (C. S. Lewis called such arrogance “chronological snobbery,” by the way), and yet Copernican-type revolutions within science continue today with great frequency. In other words, science, scientific truth that is, continues to “evolve” and recreate itself in its own transient image. Nothing is permanently fixed. Everything is free-floating.
Now,Iamnotsayingthatscience is not in the very good business of discovery, which always involves change; I am saying that with so many scientific “facts” having been overturned, criticism directed at unchanging religious truths from the scientific community could be considered hypocrisy, to say the least. After all, the footing of science is not nearly as solid as we might think, all the while we worship science as a god. Listen to these recent and random headlines from the scientific community and to the not-so-subtle nature of an ever-shifting scientific truth: “How Studying Babies’ Minds is Prompting Us to Rethink Consciousness,” or “A Whole New World of Tiny Beings Challenges Foundational Ideas of Life,” or “Biological Aging May Not Be Driven by What We Thought.” What about “Jurassic Fossil from China Rewrites History of Bird Evolution,” or maybe “Say GoodbyetoEinstein’sTheory—This NewlyDiscoveredPhysicsRethinks Everything We Know” (emphasis mine). A quick count gives the key verbs challenges, rewrites, may not be, and rethinks. Such is the ever-changing nature of scientific truth. No worry, we simply term uncoveringthelieas“discovery”and all the problems concerning truth go away. What a contrast to be made between science and Christianity. While scientific discovery is most valuable, the truth of the matter is it can never be rock solid like Jesus— “the same yesterday, today and forever” (Heb 13:8).
If science holds its theories this tenuously, especially as it relates to the origin of life and the theory of evolution, shouldn’t we be equally cautious about what science says against God? All things considered, we should bear in mind that origin of life theories promoted by science are always far from certain and always transient. In fact, some theories about the origin of life are so fascinating that they are indeed “Out of This World.” Join us again next time as we examine the difference between what science reveals and what scientists say. Until then, Is God Dead?
Gloria in excelsis Deo!
Ty B. Kerley, DMin., is an ordained minister who teaches Christian apologetics, and relief preaches in Southern Oklahoma. Dr. Kerley and his wife Vicki are members of the Waurika church of Christ, and live in Ardmore. You can contact him at: dr.kerley@isGoddead.com.