In April 1997 I discovered Conch-L and signed on.  A couple of weeks later
Conch-L was off and running with a spirited discussion of - guess what?
Yep, evolution.  I jumped right in with my two cents worth, as I have a
habit of doing, and was soundly thrashed (by a couple of individuals) as an
uppity newcomer contributing to an inappropriate topic, one that touched on
(shudder) religion.  Oh well, some people never learn, so here I go again
(but this time with uppity veteran status) . . .

Discussions on this topic always seem to break down into the scientists vs.
the "creationists" (or theists, or believers, or Christians, or whatever
label you choose).  In other words, the starting point always seems to be
the unspoken assumption that science and religion are mutually exclusive and
essentially incompatible.  Therefore, I wonder what position a person might
take on evolution who was, say, a professional molecular biologist, and also
an unshakable believer in divine revelation?  Hmmm . . .

I'll bet such a person would be annoyed when otherwise logical fellow
scientists adopt the decidely unscientific posture that something cannot
exist because they have not personally seen evidence of it.  He would
probably question the rationality of rejecting offhand the personal
experience of billions of intelligent people, because of lack of personal
experience.  He might wonder how logical it is to assume that those who
achieve advanced degrees in theology simply haven't noticed that they are
studying something that doesn't exist.

I'll bet such a person would be annoyed when otherwise astute fellow
religious believers reject offhand the results of years of meticulous
scientific research, without looking at the data, simply because they
believe they should.  He would probably theorize that a faith solidly
grounded in truth could not be shaken by scientific beliefs, right or wrong,
and that possessors of such a faith should have no reason to shy away from
an honest examination of the information upon which science bases its
beliefs.

I'll bet such a person would likely be comfortable in both his faith and his
profession, having rejected, by personal experience,  their purported
incompatibility.  His approach to life would probably be strongly influenced
by the concept that truth cannot contradict truth.  He would, I suppose, see
human intellect and divine revelation as the two great sources of human
knowledge, and would identify religion as the principle channel of one,
science of the other.  And no doubt he would feel immensely enriched by his
intimate association with both sources.  He would acknowledge that the
truths of one realm could never be discovered by the methods of the other.
And, as one who loves truth, he would freely admit that mistakes have been
made by workers in both realms, especially when they have taken it upon
themselves to dabble in the substance of the other.  But he would also
rejoice in the great truths which have been revealed by both, to the
betterment of humankind, and soundly reject the notion that any truth,
regardless of its source, can ever invalidate any other truth.

 I think he would see creation as dealing with origins, and probably
relegate it to the realm of faith.  I think he would see evolution as
dealing with natural change in things already created, a matter that science
can surely investigate.  Most likely he would see creation as a necessary
correlary of evolution (if it doesn't exist, it can't evolve).  He would
recognize that evolution is a theory, honestly examine the evidence
supporting that theory, and judge it worthy of current acceptance or
rejection.  As a theist believer, he would know that whichever alternative
is the truth cannot genuinely conflict with the truth of his faith.  As a
scientist, he would form no absolute conclusions, remaining always ready to
alter current beliefs in the light of new evidence.  And finally, if he
judges the theory worthy of current acceptance, he places it alongside other
unproven but well supported theories, upon which we depend for all our human
needs.  Like the structure of water molecules.  Of course, that theory
depends on another theory - the existence of water molecules.  After all,
no-one has ever seen one.

Paul M.