Whenever the theory of evolution is debated outside of the scientific community, debaters are usually divided into two camps: the evolutionists and the creationists. However, some people don’t fit into either camp. These particular people tend to adhere to a particular theistic faith. They wish to remain true to their faith without denying the facts of nature. These particular people fall into the category of legoists.
A legoist is a person who adheres to legoism, a philosophy which says that if a god or gods exist, then he has/ they have the ability and the authority to manipulate energy and matter the way that a child manipulates Lego® building blocks.
When applying legoism to the Creation-Evolution debate, the legoist makes the following assertions.
According to the Greek philosopher Socrates, the height of wisdom is to say, "I do not know." It is better for a person to admit a lack of knowledge than to pretend to possess knowledge that she/he does not have.
Nothing prevents the legoist from working to gain scientific knowledge. Plus, nothing requires that a legoist remain a legoist once more scientific knowledge is acquired.
2. Modern evolution theory doesn’t eliminate the possibility of supernatural entities.
Miller (1999) writes, "Does evolution really nullify all world views that depend on the spiritual? Does it demand logical agnosticism as the price of scientific consistency? And does it rigorously exclude belief in God? These are the questions that I will explore in the pages that follow. My answer, in each and every case, is a resounding “no."” (p. 17)
Gould (1999) writes: "Darwin did not use evolution to promote atheism or to maintain that no concept of God could ever be squared with the structure of nature. . . If many Western thinkers had once invoked a blinkered and indefensible concept of divinity to declare the impossibility of evolution, Darwin would not make the same arrogant mistake in the opposite direction, and claim that the fact of evolution implies the nonexistence of God."(p. 192)
The reason that evolution theory doesn’t eliminate the possibility of supernatural entities is because evolution theory doesn’t include ontological naturalism. Wilkins (1997a) writes:
"A final form of naturalism is ontological naturalism. This is the opinion that all that exists is natural. Many scientists are also physicalists. They argue that if we do not need to postulate the reality of non-physical processes for science, then we can conclude that there are no such things. This argument is too quick. The claim that ‘if A then B’ explains B may be true, but there may also be a C that explains B. Moreover, many things in the physical world are cause by many things together rather than just a few. So, we might say that a physical event is caused by both God and by physical causes, without being logically inconsistent.”
The error in logic that Wilkins describes is called “affirming the consequent”.
In a rebuttal to a creationist, Fair (2000) states, “You are making the philosophical mistake made by a number of creationists, and that is to confuse methodological naturalism (which all science depends upon) with ontological naturalism (which no science requires)."
3. In science one begins an empirical investigation by making an assumption. However, it is inappropriate to force the conclusion to conform to the assumption. If empirical data does not support the assumption, then the proper thing to do would be to discard the assumption.
4. Modern evolution theory does not depend on all mutations being random.
Mutation is a mechanism that increases genetic variation (Colby, 1996). However, the causes of mutations are not evolutionary processes (Wilkins, 1997b).
Dawkins (1996) writes:
“Mutation is the process by which fresh genetic variation is offered up for selection and it is usually described as random. But Darwinians make the fuss they do about the 'randomness' of mutation only in order to contrast it to the non-randomness of selection. It is not necessary that mutation should be random for natural selection to work. Selection can still do its work whether mutation is directed or not. Emphasizing that mutation can be random is our way of calling attention to the crucial fact that, by contrast, selection is sublimely and quintessentially non-random. It is ironic that this emphasis on the contrast between mutation and the non-randomness of selection has led people to think that the whole theory is a theory of chance.” (p. 80)
Dawkins (1996) also writes, “But, as I said before, it is not critical to the theory that mutation must be random, and it most certainly provides no excuse to tar the whole theory with the brush of randomness. Mutation may be random, but selection definitely is not.” (p.82)
5. Science is an empirical inquiry into reality, but science is not the only means of inquiring into reality.
Polkinghorne (1998) writes:
”Science and theology lie at the opposite ends of a spectrum of rational human inquiry into reality. At the scientific end is the realm of the impersonal experience; at the theological end is the realm of experience of the transpersonal. In between lie the realms of human personal encounter with reality, which are the subjects of disciplines such as aesthetics and ethics. The whole spectrum of enquiry makes up the rich many-stranded texture of human knowledge, surveying the encounter with the multi-leveled reality of the one world of human experience.”(p. 128)
Gould (1999) writes, "Science tries to document the factual character of the natural world, and to develop theories that coordinate and explain these facts. Religion, on the other hand, operates in the equally important, but utterly different, realm of human purposes, meanings, and values -subjects that the factual domain of science might illuminate, but can never resolve."(p.4)
6. A theological theory about causality does not have to conflict with a scientific theory about causality.
Gould (1999) writes, "So long as religious beliefs do not dictate specific answers to empirical questions or foreclose the acceptance of documented facts, the most theologically devout scientists should have no trouble pursuing their day jobs with equal zeal."(p. 84)
Barbour (2000) writes:
“Another way of separating theological from scientific assertions in the distinction between primary and secondary causality, which is common in Catholic and neo-orthodox thought. God as primary cause is said to work through the secondary causes of the natural world that science studies. God is omnipotent and uses natural laws to achieve particular goals. Primary causality is on a totally different level from the interactions among entities in the world.”(p.19)
Barbour, I.G. (2000). When science meets religion. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco.
Colby, C. (1996). Introduction to evolutionary biology. TalkOrigins. < http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html > (2003, Decmber 13).
Dawkins, R. (1996). Climbing Mount Improbable. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.
Fair, K. (2000). Feedback for September 2000. TalkOrigins. < http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/feedback/sep00.html> (2003, November 29).
Gould, S.J. (1999). Rocks of ages: Science and religion in the fullness of life. NY: Ballantine.
Miller, K.R. (1999). Finding Darwin’s god. NY:Cliff Street Books.
Polkinghorne, J. (1998). Science & theology. Minneapolis: SPCK Fortress Press.
Wilkins, J. (1997a). Naturalism: Is it necessary? TalkOrigins. < http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/naturalism.html > (2003, November 29).
Wilkins, J. (1997b). Evolution and chance. TalkOrigins. < http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/chance/chance.html > (2003, December 13).