posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 08:44 PM
How would you respond if someone told you that God spoke to them and told them that He worked through evolutionary processes? Remember that the
sacred Books of the various religions began as real or purported Revelations. Those Revelations cannot be questioned scientifically, or you are
testing the Lord your God.
So, if hypothetically someone claimed that God told them evolution was how He did it then the devout would be obligated to believe him if he indeed
were a true Prophet. Even if, as Creation Scientists would allege (and Darwinians would probably agree in this instance), evidence for his claims
were lacking he would still have to be believed if indeed he were a true Prophet. Failure to follow a true Prophet is blasphemy. The idea that all
religion must be proven, believed alike by both Creation Scientists of the American pragmatist "common sense school" bent and by Darwinians, is
actually a heresy according to real Fundamentalism. Traditional Jewish and Christian doctrine never stated that a Prophet *necessarily* had to prove
himself scientifically. "You shall not test the Lord your God." Revelation transcends empiricism, and if you believe in Revelation then it *DOES*
Now, if he be a false Prophet, you would not be able to ascertain that through evidence or science if you are going to follow the traditional Judaic
and Christian paths in this matter (Islam seals Prophecy to Mohammed as I understand, so any Prophet would be false if I am not mistaken). You would
have to go to the Torah, to the Scriptures, and to point out where the claims contradict Scriptures, i.e. make a case for only a literal understanding
of Scripture. Or, you would have to debunk a prediction he or she made, which is also a sign of a false Prophet. But, at no point would
paleontological observations be used. Only a religious argument against this self-proclaimed Prophet would work since anything else would be testing
according to the logic of scientific uniformitarianism which is questioned by strict Fundamentalism. (Creation Science is actually heretical
according to strict Fundamentalism because it derives from "Common Sense" Presbyterianism and not the idea that faith is an active way of knowledge)
The evidence for evolution could be completely lacking, as Creation Scientists claim, but you would still have to believe him if he is a true Prophet.
So, my question is, how do you get out of this conundrum? It is a philosophical question, an exercise of the mind. Darwinians would agree with the
Prophet, but consider him deluded *even if his scientific facts line up*, such as a possible scientific prediction he makes that is then verified in
the laboratory. They would contradict themselves given that they would be ignoring evidence even though they claim to be all about empirical
evidence, their only reconciliation being a general lack of interest in religion or the humanities generally and a tendency to simplify all religious
claims and debunk them through strawmen.
Literal Creationists would have a problem because the purported Prophet would have to be automatically declared a false Prophet, a priori, but if they
are honest they could not do so scientifically. They would have to do so through the Biblical text. Their a priori dismissal would be unfair if only
on the basis of a personal bias and the possibility of dismissing a true Prophet.
We Divinely Guided evolutionists would be the only one who could give this person an honest investigation. We would investigate on two levels. Does
this person's scientific facts line up? We could ask that because Divinely Guided evolutionists are also disciples of Common Sense, but without the
contradictions of Fundamentalists in that we admit non-literal possibilities that according with the assumptions of scientific uniformitarianism on
the question of origins. But, also, we would ask if this person's claim line up spiritually? Tackling the claim on both fronts, they are the only
ones who would give this purported Prophet a fair shake without dismissing his claims on purely biased grounds. They would search the Bible and the
Book of Nature, just like the "Common Sense" philosophers of the Scottish Enlightenment. The other two philosophies might rightly dismiss him with
bias, but they would have to admit their dismissal to be informed opinion but not an absolute literal adherence either to the rules of science or to
the logic of Scripture.
So, is it then true that atheist Darwinianism and literal Creationism both fail the test of philosophy when it comes to this puzzle? I am sure that
there might be an actual answer to this, but I throw it out there as a logic puzzle. Enjoy.
Also consider another logic puzzle. What if evolutionary biologists discovered that apes believe in God? (or some religion) This would be proof of
an evolutionary continuity between us and our cousins. But...it would also establish religion as an adaptation. Is not an adaptation and adaptation
to something real? Would they be so quick to dismiss belief?