As a young doctoral student in the 1960s, Francisco Ayala was surprised to learn that Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution appeared to be less widely accepted in the United States than in his native Spain, then a profoundly conservative and religious country.
Ayala brought a unique sensibility to the topic, because he had been ordained as a Catholic priest before undertaking graduate studies in evolution and genetics. What he believed then, and has spent his career espousing, is that evolution is consistent with the Christian faith.
On Thursday, Ayala, an acclaimed researcher at UC Irvine, won the 2010 Templeton Prize, awarded annually in recognition of achievements in affirming spirituality. The prize is worth $1.6 million, which Ayala said he would give to charity.
In announcing the award, Dr. John M. Templeton Jr., president of the John Templeton Foundation, praised Ayala’s research, which has focused on evolutionary genetics, as well as his inquiries into fundamental questions of life. “Ayala’s clear voice in matters of science and faith echoes the foundation’s belief that evolution of the mind and truly open-minded inquiry can lead to real spiritual progress in the world,” Templeton said.
I once asked a devout Catholic friend why there seemed to be less resistance to accommodating scientific theory about evolution within the OT scriptures than within certain protestant circles. His answer was that Catholic teaching is that parts of the Old Testament such as the Creation accounts of Genesis are regarded as “didactic fiction”, devices by which God conveys truths in terms that man can understand. This audience will probably have much to say about my friend’s explanation, but I found it interesting and worth thinking about. In any event, Professor Ayala’s work seems of a piece with this outlook.
It’s a shame that the mainstream newsmedia believes it has to dumb things down to the point of complete intellectual mush. To say that the Bible is a “The Bible is a book about religious truths; it is not how the Earth was made,” is to make so bland and general a point as to be virtually useless in evaluating the man’s thought. Of course the Bible isn’t a scientific textbook – that has never really been the point of the debate. I suspect that he may well have something to say about the Intelligent Design movement, but you’d never know it from this. He seems here to confuse it with young-earth creationism and/or cling tightly to deistic assumptions regarding an inability of God to nudge creation along. I doubt the man takes so simplistic a view and I doubt he is really so uninterested in what the ID movement actually says. It would have been interesting to actually hear the nman’s response to, say, Behe or Demski’s actual arguments rather than this silly nonsense about how ID is ” consistent with a literal reading of the biblical creation story,” which it manifestly is not. I’m guessing Ayala’s argumentation is just a smidge more careful and nuanced. It would have been interesting to hear what it actually is.
Earth is in the world.
God does not live in the world, so he sent his son.
World-Time is demonstrably a fundamental aspect of the world, and not therefore of any use for measure outside of it.
So how long is 7 days in, say, dog years? Or dinosaur years?
Genesis is a beautifully expressed description of the big bang theory, given to men who had little concept of science, much less astrophysics.
An alternative view: http://www.reasons.org/
Old earth/universe creation model that is falsifiable, science friendly, and within an evangelical framework…what’s not to like?
Any serious world-view must have a creation narrative, laying out basic assumptions as to what the world is and how it got here. To challenge a creation narrative is to challenge the associated world-view. The Theory of Evolution is the creation narrative of secular humanism, and challenges to it are resisted strongly in our culture. I suppose that the desire for peace and friendship with non-believers explains the eagerness of many Christians to affirm the Evolutionist narrative. Nevertheless, the Intelligent Design scientists, to say nothing of the young-earth creation scientists, have pointed out many scientific errors/problems with the Theory of Evolution. I find those dissenters more interesting than those who would make peace with Evolution.