Tomorrow is the 200th birthday of Charles Darwin! Seems like a good day to talk about a controversial topic! I am a little nervous because I’m taking a risk here – the last time I brought up a controversial topic, I simply quoted someone else to help define the problem. This time, I’m going to venture some opinion of my own. Some of you are going to disagree with me. Also, fair warning, it’s going to be a long post, because, well, it’s a can of worms.
Depending on who you are, when you think of Charles Darwin, you might think:
1)The father of modern evolutionary theory, and a leading light in scientific history
2)A name you vaguely remember from science class – something about a Beagle?
3)A name you saw on a bumper sticker inside a fish with legs on it this one time
4)The guy who ruined the world
If you are person number 2 or 3, you’re probably not going to care about this post. If you’re either of the other two, read on.
A Personal History
First, a little biographical record of things I have thought about the creation of the world. I spent my childhood and youth as a Biblical literalist, as far as Genesis was concerned, but learned about evolution in public school. I really didn’t think much about the dissonance between the two. I was somewhat confused, but tended to go with flow depending on the environment.
As I continued my religious education, I learned there is more than one way to skin a cat, in relation to reading the first few chapters of Genesis – more on this later. I became even more confused. I would occasionally wander wistfully through the Christian bookstore, look at the multiplicity of titles on the shelf seeking to explain it all to me, get overwhelmed, heave a sigh and wander away again.
At some point in the past few years, I became…a theistic evolutionist. Which is to say, I believe God created the universe, and that evolution is the process by which the variety of species on earth derived from a common ancestor, including all the humans who we all know and love so much. I was a secret theistic evolutionist, because people tended to get upset whenever we talked about such things. If you are upset right now, for example, please ask yourself, “Why am I upset right now?” Stop reading if you can’t come up with an answer that doesn’t allow you to keep reading without emotions like rage or deep and utter disappointment. Once you get there, keep reading.
Anyway, I was a secret theistic evolutionist. Then the youth group started asking uncomfortable questions, like, “What about the dinosaurs?” So, I figured I had to come clean, and tackle the question with them. And now, here I am talking about it on the blogosphere. Keep an open mind blogosphere, and hear me out!
Who Cares?
I don’t know this from personal experience, necessarily, but I know there are some people who would say, “Why even bother with the question?” From a faith standpoint, what you believe about evolution doesn’t necessarily affect whether you are a Christian or not, so why bother even broaching the topic?
I think it’s important for a couple of reasons. One is that God gave us brains, and if we have the capability to understand something (like the Bible, or the origin of the universe, or the world around us), we have a responsibility to try and do so.
Here’s another one, as presented by our friend St. Augustine:
“Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience.
Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show a vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men.
If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books and matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learned from experience in the light of reason?”
Augustine said this in the 4th century. I think it still applies today. For example, I had a next-door neighbor who was a Ph.D. student in neuroscience. He couldn’t fathom why anyone wouldn’t believe in evolution when, in his estimation, he could literally see its results everyday in the lab. From his perspective, if Christians couldn’t believe what he could see with his own eyes, why should he believe what Christians proclaim that couldn’t be seen?
One of the things that makes the discussion of evolution convoluted is the fear of hidden agendas. So let me be frank: my agenda is to get people to meet Jesus, and to receive salvation from Him. The current state of discussion on evolution in our country is more often than not an obstacle to getting people to meet Jesus. In looking for a way forward, I found out that the debate wasn’t as simple as evolution vs. creationism. There was another way. I found it best expressed in Francis Collins’ book “The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief.” Collins is one of the world’s most distinguished scientists – the former head of the Human Genome Project, and a researcher in gene therapy for cystic fibrosis. He is also an adult convert to Christianity. In the book he takes on the difficult task of defending faith to scientists, defending evolution to Christians, and portraying a middle way. And he manages to do it in less than 300 pages. Not bad. A lot of this entry, including the Augustine quote above, comes from things in his book.
The last reason to talk about evolution is the circumstance I mentioned above. People like me who have jobs that require them to 1) read the Bible, and 2) teach people stuff, need to have answers to questions like, “What about the dinosaurs?” I want to make sure I have clear (if not concise) answers to their questions.
"What about me?!"
On Evolution
I started with the youth by setting out the options – the things people believe about the origin of the universe, and of humanity in particular. Creationism, Evolution, Theistic Evolution. I asked them why scientists believe in evolution. Their answer: “Because they hate God!”
I think they were telling me what they thought I wanted to hear. But, in case you believe the same, I can tell you with fairly good confidence that “hating God” is not the reason most scientists believe in evolution. The reason they believe it is that (so far) it is the best explanation that has been proposed for the origin of the variety of biological life we see around us. The preponderance of evidence is pretty convincing to a lot of people, especially when you consider genetic evidence (something I won’t even attempt to summarize here).
Further debunking the “scientists hate God” belief is the fact that there are a lot of scientists like Francis Collins, who believe in God and in evolution. Collins’ cites the following survey - in 1916 a sampling of biologists, physicists, and mathematicians were asked whether they believed in a God who actively communicates with humankind and to whom one may pray in the expectation of receiving an answer. 40% of those polled said yes. In 1997 the survey was repeated, and this time, the percentage was ---- 40%.
The belief that evolution is part of a secular materialist agenda on the part of scientists to eradicate the belief in God is simply not true. Certainly, there are noteworthy examples of this kind of agenda, but they in no way speak for the majority of scientists.
If you are one of the people who thinks Darwin ruined the world, it’s probably because you think that he started the secular materialist agenda, and that a necessary result of accepting evolution then became rejecting faith entirely. I don’t think history bears this out. In fact, I think it is more likely that hard-line Christian rejection of evolutionary theory since the time of Darwin has led people like my former neighbor into the arms of whatever secular materialist agenda actually exists. In other words, it wasn’t evolution or the enlightenment that brought belief in God crashing down, as much as it has been the inability of the church to engage the enlightenment and reasonably discuss evolutionary theory that leads people to see faith as backward and outdated.
As a historical precedent, consider the sad case of Galileo. The church of the day said his belief that the earth revolves around the sun was blasphemous and would lead to widespread apostasy. The Bible very clearly states that “the world is firmly established, it will not be moved.” (Psalm 93:1) This was a strange place to draw the line, frankly, and these days everyone admits that the church was wrong, and Galileo was right. But the issue for the church at that time revolved around (ba dum bum!) biblical interpretation, which we’ll get to in a second.
"I can't get no respect!" - Galileo
First though, in case you feel like Christian acceptance of evolutionary theory is new, let’s hear from some old Christians:
“For long centuries, God perfected the animal form which was to become the vehicle of humanity and the image of Himself. He gave it hands whose thumb could be applied to each of the fingers, and jaws and teeth and throat capable of articulation, and a brain sufficiently complex to execute all the material motions whereby rational thought is incarnated. The creature may have existed in this state for ages before it became man: it may even have been clever enough to make things which a modern archaeologist would accept as proof of humanity. But it was only an animal because all its physical and psychical processes were directed to purely material and natural ends. Then, in the fullness of time, God caused to descend upon this organism, both on its psychology and its physiology, a new kind of consciousness which could say, "I" and "me", which could look upon itself as an object, which knew God, which could make judgments of truth, beauty, and goodness, and which was so far above time that it could perceive time flowing past. We do not know how many of these creatures God made, nor how long they continued in the Paradisal state. But sooner or later they fell. Someone or something whispered that they could be gods.” – C.S. Lewis
“If evolution simply means that a positive thing called an ape turned very slowly into a positive thing called a man, then it is stingless for the most orthodox; for a personal God might just as well do things slowly as quickly - especially if, like the Christian God, He were outside time.” – G.K. Chesterton
Let me venture one more word on this sub-topic, to clear up a common misunderstanding about evolution. There are two definitions for the word “theory.”
1. a speculative or conjectural view of something; ex. I have a theory that peanut butter and chocolate taste great together.
2. fundamental principles underlying a science, art, etc.: i.e. music theory, theory of equations
When science-types use the term “theory of evolution,” they mean definition #2. Francis Collins again, “The primary utility of a theory is not just to look back but to look forward. A viable scientific theory predicts other findings and suggests approaches for further experimental verification.” That’s why scientists like the theory of evolution.
On Genesis
If you know me or read the blog regularly, you know I take the Bible and my faith very seriously. And when it came to evolution, the big bang theory, etc., I, like many evangelicals had a hard time reconciling this with what I believe God has revealed in the Old Testament.
The pro-Biblical, anti-evolution part of the argument usually starts with, “If you don’t believe part of the Bible, how can you believe any of the Bible?” It may also include the sentiment, “God wouldn’t lie to me.”
I whole-heartedly agree that the entire Bible is to be believed, and that God wouldn’t lie to us. I think the issue here is one of interpretation.
Let’s start with the verse poor Galileo had to contend with as an example. “The world is firmly established, it shall not be moved.” There are two ways to interpret this verse:
1)The earth is the literal center of the universe and does not move at all
2)This is a poetic representation of God’s sovereignty over creation
I think there’s pretty good evidence for option 2 because:
1)Scientific evidence shows that the earth is not the center of the universe and does move quite a bit
2)That verse is in a poem
So, if I believe option 2, I still believe the Bible to be true, and that God Has not lied to me, I just interpret the verse differently, based on the context and its original intent.
Now, here are our options for Genesis chapters 1-3, the passages that most directly impact the evolution debate:
1)God created the earth in six days (with some interpretive leeway here), and all the species on earth separately according to their kinds, including humans
2)This is a poetic representation of God’s purposeful action in creating the universe, and His special relationship with human beings
Some indicators for a poetic reading of Genesis 1-3:
1)The pattern in chapter 1
-Day 1 – Light - Day 4 – Sun/Moon/Stars
-Day 2 – Sky/Water - Day 5 – Birds/Fish
-Day 3 – Ground/Plants - Day 6 – Animals/Humans
2)The content of chapters 2 and 3
-A tree whose fruit grants eternal life
-A tree whose fruit grants the knowledge of good and evil
-A talking snake (not portrayed in the story itself as demonic)
-A moral rule given to people who, according to the story, do not know the difference between good and evil
-A different sequence of events for creation than in chapter 1
-No historical context for this story – its setting is before any recorded history
This idea may be way, way foreign to some of you, and it freaked me out real bad the first time I heard it, too. Here’s how I learned to relax – there are other parts of the Bible that tell us the truth without giving us a literal sequence of events. Psalms, a huge portion of the Prophets, even the parables of Jesus are all “true” without being literal because they teach us true things about ourselves and about God. What if Genesis 1-3 falls into that category?
Here are some true things we can learn from a poetic reading of Genesis:
-God created everything, He did it on purpose, and He did it from nothing
-Humans are unique creations of God, able to interact with Him in a way unlike any other creature, and able to participate in creation themselves
-Humans have a responsibility to care for creation
-The relationship of humans with the world, with God, and with each other used to better and we (humans) screwed it up
-God sets the boundaries of good and evil
-God provides the covering for our shame when we overstep the boundaries
None of those truths depend on a literal reading of Genesis. None of those truths are incompatible with the currently accepted scientific theory of how the universe began or how life on earth began and has culminated in humanity.
I don’t think God lied to us, and don’t think God gave us an account of creation to confuse us. I think He gave us a story of creation that told us the truth about Himself, the world, our place in it, and our relationship with Him, in a way no other kind of story could. There isn’t a good word in English for this kind of literature. If we call it the same thing we call non-Biblical creation stories – a myth – that insinuates that it is untrue. One of the synonyms for “myth” is “falsehood.” But as we have seen, even if read non-literally, it teaches us things that are true. It’s truth does not depend on being a literal record of sequential events. It’s a lot more like Revelation than Ruth, in other words. This is not a new approach to this scripture – ancient Hebrew commentators have a wide variety of interpretations of these passages, many of them non-literal.
Augustine again: “In matters that are so obscure and far beyond our vision, we find in Holy Scripture passages which can be interpreted in very different ways without prejudice to the faith we have received. In such cases, we should not rush in headlong and so firmly take our stand that, if further progress in the search for truth justly undermines this position, we too fall with it.”
I think the power of the story is illustrated in that, whatever logical objections could be raised to a literal reading of the story, no one ever says, “Well that doesn’t sound like humans at all!” It resonates because it sounds exactly like what we ourselves would do in such a situation – be given a Paradise to live in, get one rule – just one! – break the one rule, and then blame your spouse.
The power of the truth of the story stands out even more when you compare Genesis’ “First Story” to other creation accounts from other cultures. Almost any other origin story features gods and goddesses fighting monsters or each other, having sex with one another, or both. The violence and lust of humanity is projected into the heavens in Greek, Babylonian, Egyptian, and even Chinese stories of creation. Often humans are created as a sort of afterthought to serve the gods. But the Hebrew story is about a God who creates everything from nothing – like a musician, a poet, an artist. He doesn’t need to fight primordial dragons or have a divine consort. He creates, and it is good. And his triumphant creation, humanity, is created not to serve Him, but to live in His image, and commune with Him. Quite a different kind of story.
The objection to this kind of interpretation is often raised, “If you don’t take the first chapters of the Bible at their word, how can we know what we are supposed to take literally or not?” I think the context of Biblical writings makes that clear. The story of Abraham, or Moses, or David, and especially Jesus, are tied by their writers to specific times and places, to other notable historical figures, and are clearly intended to be historical accounts. We know the life of Jesus isn’t an allegory because of the way his story is written. I think the “First Story” in Genesis, though, has all the hallmarks of being a different kind of literature. It is not and was not intended to be the final word on astronomy, biology, genetics, and anthropology. It always was intended to be the first word on theology.
Someone once asked me, “Why are you trying to apply evolution to the Bible?” The answer is, I’m not. I’m trying to apply the Bible to the world. Currently, most of the educated world (except America) overwhelmingly accepts the theory of evolution. There are plenty of other places where the Bible stands in judgment over the popular theories of the world, but I don't think the process of creation is one of those places, and we do ourselves and people who are not believers a disservice by trying to fight a battle we don't have to fight.
Why Can’t We Talk Without Yelling?
Some Christians believe evolution is a bunch of hooey. Some believe in a literal 6 day creation, a 6000 year old earth, etc. Some Christians believe God created the universe and all life on earth, and He used evolution and genetics to do it.
Both groups are made up of people who love Jesus and want other people to meet Him. There is no reason the conversation between Christians should be as shrill as it has been, and especially no reason the conversation between Christians and non-believers should be as contentious as it has.
You have every right to disagree with me, just as I have the right to disagree with you. Neither of us, however, have the right to bash each other. Just make sure that if you disagree with me, you do so for good reason, and you do so in love. If you have read this far, you deserve a special award. Go get yourself a Dr. Pepper!
.gif)
