A couple of days ago a co-worker of mine brought up the idea that some of the concepts of evolution in science were refutable, so that meant the concept of evolution was flawed, and since it was flawed it must mean it is false. I was then obliged to put for that if somehow someone found a lack of facts in a chain of events did not mean that something is proved false, it just meant that because some parts of the theory of evolution seemed refutable did not make the possibility of evolution any more or less probable. And that even if the theory of evolution was proved false, which it is not simply because evidence is missing, that did not automatically mean that God spontaneously caused creatures just to appear when prior evidence did not exist showing a clear path of evolutionary change.
This turned then to the concept of a created universe by a supreme God that just "made it happen". I told my coworker that the concept of causality he was embracing regarding a proof of God was flawed, and that if God were real, He certainly did not need proving, if one could prove something both omnipotent and undefinable existed in the first place. I never went into the discussion that by placing limits on an unlimited being you define and limit that being and eliminate its status as omnipotent and unlimited.
The thought of trying to define God, and we are talking in the "People of the Book" sense of a sole supreme monotheistic entity, is that if God is real, you really can't define something that is determined to be outside of your realm of comprehension due to the accepted facts that God is omnipotent and spans our entire realm of existence. Saying then that "this is what God does" and "this is what God is" just goes to show that most people don't really grasp the concept of unknowns too well. Which, really, gets back to the science discussion we were having.
I had to explain that real scientists don't view the concepts of things like evolution as absolutes. That is why they are called theories- which means they are postulations that are unproven and possibly may be either proven or unproven at some point in the future. I mentioned that most scientists also seem to have a difficult time with the concept of unproven and instead form definite positions based on something unproven. There are lots of scientists who very clearly have a "religious" bias in regard to some portions of the theory of evolution appearing to be provable, and therefore taking those components outside of the theory in general and applying them to a worldview. Much like evangelists for any other form of faith in an orthodoxy, these people abandon the tenets of Descartes and make the egregious mistake of claiming that since some scientific facts are provable, then other things that were not taken, discussed or created in a scientific fashion must be false.
I told my co-worker that while I do play Devil's advocate regarding people who wish to state that the theory of evolution is false, I don't actually support whether a theory of evolution is true or not. I said that people on both sides of the argument- as to whether things were spontaneously created out of nothing, or slowly created themselves out of some basic amino acids- was mostly ignoring that a theory means that the facts aren't known to be proven or true. Theory also means that nobody really knows if any of it is false. People have a hard time living in a state of uncertainty, and that makes it difficult to understand that real science has little to do with arguing a point of view beyond the basics of proven or not proven, and that when people stray from that state into conclusion, then what they are doing is no longer science as they no longer follow the scientific method. Worse, the religious using that same flawed logic to attempt to disprove evolution doesn't help the case of those arguing for intelligent design or some other form of creationism either.
Then I contrasted that viewpoint, and stated that even Descartes was a very religious man, and that other scientists believe and have believed in religions as well. Science doesn't define the world, it just defines those things scientists view and attempt to define in the world as consistent or inconsistent. Also, I mentioned that I don't follow the derisive concepts on evolutionary absolutism professed by Dr. Dawkins either, as I find his point of view just as dogmatic as any other religious nut, except that Dr. Dawkins' orthodoxy is atheism- and that he has an easier time defending himself, as he essentially and rabidly believes in the Big Nothing, which is awfully hard to take a swing at.
Then my coworker had to ask what I personally believe in. Well, I told him that was personal, and while I don't take Dawkins' point of view, I also don't believe in spontaneous creation of complex life forms. Beyond that, I said, I have nothing I need to explain.
And for those reading this, I will explain more on my viewpoints on God tomorrow, as I wish to at least record my own personal point of view for later discussion with my daughter, and don't want to forget what I was thinking about later on. Beyond that, don't expect anything new, and please don't take what I believe personally as Gospel.
