The Origin of the Species

Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial was the title of a recent episode of PBS’ popular documentary-style science show Nova. The topic centered around a Federal Court case in Pennsylvania which was veritable show-down between Darwin’s Theory of Evolution and the more recently popular notion of Intelligent Design. The judge was basically asked to determine whether or not Intelligent Design should, in fact, be considered a credible scientific alternative to Darwin’s Theory of Evolution.

Put very simply, Intelligent Design basically states that life is too complex to have evolved over time, and thus must have been designed by an “intelligent agent,” while Evolution states that life evolved over time based on the process of natural selection. Over the last 150 years, scientists have found various evidence that supports the theory, but not enough to definitively prove it. Intelligent design has no uniquely supporting evidence, but instead attempts simply to discredit Evolution.

Based on this, the judge decided that Intelligent Design should not be considered scientific, and thus cannot be presented as an alternative to Evolution. Of course the this decision was met with mixed feelings — with proponents of Intelligent Design upset, and proponents of Evolution feeling affirmed.

Now, setting aside the fallout from this particular decision (the condemnation of Dover, PA by Pat Roberson, the judge being placed under protection due to death threats, the typical Evangelical Right response to criticism… too far?), what I found to be really intriguing was the case itself. As a Christian, I was taught that Creationism was right, and Evolution was wrong. To believe the book of Genesis at face value, and ignore any evidence that supposedly affirmed Darwin’s theory.

As I watched this story, knowing very little about the science behind Evolution, I found it increasingly difficult to simply dismiss the evidence that seemingly backs up Darwin’s theory, and increasingly more difficult to get behind the pseudo-science of Intelligent Design / Creationism. But at the same time, I was (and still am) unwilling to give up my belief in God’s story of creation.

This got me to thinking, and it is these thoughts that I will leave you with…

Could there be an alternate theory of how life began that the evidence also supports?…

Could it be that all the evidence of evolution really does is show how connected life actually is?…

Should science even factor into the question of the origin of life?…

If you sincerely believe something, does it really matter what the world thinks about your beliefs? I mean, they are yours, aren’t they?

Christian Art = Oxymoron?

So I was cruising around Relevant’s website this morning and came across an article entitled Relevance, Faith, & Art by a singer/songwriter out of Chicago.

In it, she breaks down the major positions that Christians take on art, and critiques the problems that such positions create.

From the article:

Many contemporary Christians tend to make one of three errors when dealing with art: One, we declare anything that doesn’t explicitly proselytize, anything that depicts brokenness without redemption to be depraved or unworthy of Christian notice. Or two, we decide that the secular world really does have better art, so we copy it, boldly and without apology or thought into our own creativity. Or three, we try so hard to be relevant that we adopt the attitude and worldview of the culture that surrounds us—instead of being the proverbial salt and light, we end up as dust with nothing to offer in the way of hope, because there is only a perfunctory difference between those of us who claim to follow Christ and those who don’t.

She couldn’t be more right (righter? immersed in rightness?). In fact, I don’t even have anything to add (a first, right?) — the article speaks for itself.

Read it and let it speak to you.