The New York Times writes today about Francisco J. Ayala, a Dominican priest-turned-biologist who speaks about evolution as a ‘gift to religion and science.’ This article caught my eye because I was just having this conversation with my program director the other day, and will probably buy the book now to see what the scientist has to say.
Dr. Ayala, a former Dominican priest, said he told his audiences not just that evolution is a well-corroborated scientific theory, but also that belief in evolution does not rule out belief in God. In fact, he said, evolution “is more consistent with belief in a personal god than intelligent design. If God has designed organisms, he has a lot to account for.”
I guarantee some controversy when you discuss this article but I think it makes some very worthwhile points about the artificial conflict between God and science.
I completely agree. I’d like to think that an omnipotent being would be intelligent and capable enough to have created a complex, self-adapting system that didn’t require his constant intervention.
I think a lot of people on both sides tend to confuse the difference between the how and the why. Evolution isn’t some kind of argument against the existence of God or the origins of the universe — merely an explanation based on observable evidence for how cumulative genetic deviation can eventually result in an entirely different species.
Dr. Ayala is right in that if God is truly responsible for the direct design of the human body, he’d have a lot to account for; there were some pretty unintelligent design choices made. Like making the food intake and the air intake the same passageway, or making the human pelvis tip forward like that of an ape while intending us to stand and walk upright, leading to bizarre curvatures in the spine. Compare that to how complex and versatile DNA is — evolution gives God a lot more credit than Intelligent Design.
Er, and by “both sides” I don’t mean to imply that there are actually two sides; I mean more the two sides in the “war” over this that, as pointed out, is an illusory conflict.