Chapter 09.1 - The Nature of Man

The Nature of Man

Without the presuppositions of the Christian faith the individual is either nothing or becomes everything. In the Christian faith man’s insignificance as a creature, involved in the process of nature and time, is lifted into significance by the mercy and power of God in which his life is sustained. But his significance as a free spirit is understood as subordinate to the freedom of God.                       Reinhold Niebuhr, The Nature and Destiny of Man

It is beyond doubt that there is nothing which more shocks our reason than to say that the sin of the first man has rendered guilty those, who, being so removed from this source, seem incapable of participation in it. This transmission does not only seem to us impossible, it seems also very unjust. . . . Certainly nothing offends us more rudely than this doctrine; and yet, without this mystery, the most incomprehensible of all, we are incomprehensible to ourselves.

Pascal, Pensees The fact that man can transcend himself in infinite regression and cannot find the end of life except in God is the mark of his creativity and uniqueness; closely related to this capacity is his inclination to transmute his partial and finite self and his partial and finite values into the infinite good. Therein lies his sin.

Niebuhr, Nature and Destiny of Man The final sin of man, said Luther truly, is his unwillingness to concede that he is a sinner.

Niebuhr, Nature and Destinyof Man The doctrine of man, generally coming under the rubric of anthropology, is important for a number of reasons. First, it is a subject that can be discussed at great length with the unbelieving world. The unbelieving man is yet man. Second, what man believes about man will determine much of the movement of history. One only has to look at three men.

Friedrich Nietzsche is the man that one must know to understand the drive for power, as seen in the Third Reich of Germany or the fascism of the Italian Mussolini. Karl Marx has placed his imprint upon the minds of millions. It is his view of "man" that is important. It is not primarily the emphasis on economics that sets Marx apart but "the ideas of human dignity and of justice, that of the identity of the idea of man and the ideal of society, and lastly the understanding of the historical nature of human existence."¹ The other man, Sigmund Freud, gives us a view of man as understood from the sex instinct, and his nature as man must be interpreted from this standpoint. It is evident that a "man’s view of himself determines his life." ²

There is thus a difference between anthropologies. This is evident in the following ways. There is the scientific discipline of anthropology which attempts to uncover the facts of man’s historical existence. Man has a history that is worth knowing. Mankind has lived in a world that can be observed. His scientifically observed life must not be regarded as useless. What man is physically and chemically often affects what he is creatively.

Philosophical anthropology is very much interested in the subject of man. What is man? What is life? What is his body? Does he have a soul? Such questions are of interest to philosophy. There is a considerable identity of interest between philosophical anthropology and theological anthropology. The latter is unique in that it seeks a special understanding of man in revelation. It turns to the Scriptures for a measure of the knowledge that it accepts. Theological anthropology cannot agree with the words of Alexander Pope that "the proper study of mankind is man." If this were all that we had to go on, our task would be rather disappointing. In spite of the gross misconceptions attributed to it, the biblical picture of man ultimately is the most realistic and most optimistic one available

There are two ways of approaching the biblical Christian doctrine of man. First, one can gather all the statements concerning man in the Bible and put them in order. This is the method most commonly used. But there is a problem in understanding man from this standpoint. If sinful man is not what he once was, how can we understand what he ought to be now? Where is the pattern for understanding him? Even though it is possible to build an anthropology on compiled texts, it falls short of a connecting link between the present and the past. "We are not in any position to infer from any residual lineaments in the Biblical picture of sinful man the true essence of man as God created him."³

Another approach is to begin with the man, Jesus who is the real man. "The nature of the man Jesus alone is the key to the problem of human nature. This man is man."⁴ In this case, anthropology depends on Christology. In looking at Jesus we see ourselves. "In Him are the peace and clarity which are not in ourselves. In Him is the human nature created by God without the self-contradiction which afflicts us and without the self-deception by which we seek to escape from our shame. In Him is human nature without human sin." ⁵

There is merit in this method. We know little about the first man, but this man shines forth in the light of history. Perhaps the phrase speaking of Christ as the "second Adam" gives a commentary here. "The same Christ who is accepted by faith as the revelation of the character of God is also regarded as the revelation of the true character of man."⁶ In knowing Christ we know what we should be.

We now turn to the special items in the doctrine of man.

TheCreation of Man The appearance of man on the face of the earth is a fact we accept. The questions of how man arrived and when are not so easily solved. Theologians in the past have accepted the Genesis account without question. With the rise of modern science, new problems arose. Frequently theologians begin with the scientific data on man’s past and attempt to squeeze the biblical account into their scientific explanations. What is needed, however, is for both disciplines--science and religion--to receive sincere treatment at the hands of the other.

Gen 1:1-31;Gen 2:1-25;Gen 3:1-24. History or Myth? A decisive issue in the doctrine of man relates to the early chapters of Genesis. How are they to be understood? Are they historical? Are they myths in the deep sense of that word, conveying profound theological truths concerning man? There are three ways at least that one may regard these chapters.

Traditional.--The traditional view of the early chapters of Genesis is that they describe God’s creative activity compressed into six twenty-four-hour days. Man is created on the sixth day and is very young in age. The idea of creation taking place at 4004 BC. has been influential since the time of Archbishop Ussher. When various sciences came to assert that man is much older, it was easy to see how the two disciplines conflicted. Something had to go. Some Christians gave up the historical view of the early chapters in Genesis, others gave up science and compartmentalized their faith, while still others sought some different approach. Many proposals were set forth, of which too few had any merit, such as the gap theory of the old Scofield Bible. A contemporary movement supporting a young earth concept is the Creation Research Institute. A group of scientists from various disciplines have banded together to question many of the assumptions of Darwinism. We shall discuss the top two contenders current in theological circles

Creation revealed in six days.--The six days mentioned in Genesis are six twenty-four-hour days in which at one point in man’s history God told the story of creation to man. The story is quite old. On each day in which the story was told it may have been written down on a stone tablet similar to the manner in which the Babylonians wrote their version of the story. Inasmuch as the first Hebrews came from a Babylonian culture, one would expect a similarity in literary styles. The six days, in which God said to man the story of the past, are not related to the age of the earth or the age of man. The fact of Genesis is the fact of man’s life, beginning with God as Creator. One may find broad parallels between the development from simplicity to complexity in the account of Genesis and the geological table, but Genesis gives no indication of the age factor at all. The merits of this view are: ( 1 ) It is not cluttered with any chronology; ( 2 ) it may find a general concordism with the facts of science; ( 3 ) it retains the integrity of the concept of a"day"’ understood in the Hebrew sense of an evening and a morning; and (4) it fits into our understanding of the culture of the ancient past.⁷

Genesis is a myth: Unfortunately, the word "myth" means to many people something fictitious. There are many meanings of the term. Theologians use it to speak of a literary type, or vehicle, which conveys profound theological truths. As such it conveys the deepest truths about man’s nature and existence.

If the story of Genesis is accepted as myth, it then becomes the story of everyman. It has been the story of man since his existence. It is yet the story of man to come. Man is confronted with the issues of right and wrong, and has to choose between them. The story points up to the fact of man’s continued choice for sin against God. Paul Tillich says, "The story of Genesis, chapters 1-3, if taken as a myth, can guide our description of the transition from essential to existential being. It is the profoundest and richest expression of man’s awareness of his existential estrangement and provides the scheme in which the transition from essence to existence can be treated." ⁸ The account in Genesis becomes the story of mankind every day of its life rather than an event that happened once long ago to one man. There is value in regarding the account from the mythological point of view. It escapes the problem of traditional theology, which will be considered later, in which the descendants of Adam seem to be held guilty for something they did not do. Yet it does not have an adequate answer to the question concerning why each person comes to the point of personal rebellion. We will come to that later.

Adam-Name or Noun? This question is closely related to the section above. Two points of view are in contention here. First, Adam is not the name of an individual historical man but refers to Man. It is argued that the word for Adam is really not a proper noun at all, but a general term for man, like mankind. The same applies to the "woman" until she is given a proper name in Gen 3:20. Thus it is concluded that the references in Genesis refer not to a particular man but give the story of every man.⁹ Tillich speaks of these early chapters as myth and interprets them as a state of "dreaming innocence." The account refers not to a single man but to a state of potentiality which was before time and place, but yet to be. The second point of view holds that Adam was a historical man. It is true that the Revised Standard Version of the Bible translates the word used in the King James for Adam as "man." It never speaks of Adam until Gen 3:17 and continues to do so thereafter with the exception of 3:20 and 5:2. The name Adam is used in the Gospels only once (Luk 3:38). In the Epistles it has a doctrinal framework, comparing the first transgression of "Adam" with the obedience of Christ, the second Adam.¹⁰ The types of objection to Adam as a historical man are: ( 1 ) grammatical usage in the early chapter; (2) the problem of equating Adam with ancient primitive man as science "knows" him; and ( 3 ) the built-in problem of guilt, associated with the traditional doctrine of sin in which mankind is judged for Adam’s sin. These objections are not insurmountable but must be resolved to restore this position to its importance.

There is perhaps a third alternative which could be introduced, but which is not widely held. The solution could lie in maintaining both. Adam could well refer to the first historical man, for, after all, man kind had to begin some where. The story of Adam could well be understood from the existential point of view in which each man sees himself deciding between "truth or falsehood." Why not have your cake and eat it too?

Man Versus the Animals

Delaying for the time the question of man’s origin, we need to ask concerning the difference between man and the animals. One can parallel various physical similarities between man and other higher animals. Man’s larger brain, his upright stature, and his thumb opposing first finger are significant differing physical characteristics. "Man is the only animal which can make itself its own object.¹¹ Man can "look" at himself as well as have a consciousness of the world as apart from himself. This reflects the rational nature of man. It is possible to speak of animals reasoning within limits, but man alone has "the power of abstraction and generalization." ¹² Animals do not produce books on philosophy and theology.

Unique to man are the realms of religion and morality. Although man continues to turn toward idolatry and corruption of religion, he is the only worshiping creature. Man alone stands in responsibility in moral issues. Only man is a murderer. Brunner speaks of the human nature being expressed in desiring something "mental for its own sake, something beautiful for the sake of its beauty, something good for the sake of goodness, something true on account of its truth, something holy for the sake of its holiness. No animal reveres its dead. Where there is reverence for the dead, there already human nature is present."¹³ James Orr stressed the rational religious and moral faculties of man as well as his capacity for speech and his progressive creative ability in the "arts, institutions, and sciences." ¹⁴ However similar man is to the creatures below him, he is quite distinct from them. We agree with Brunner that the humanness of man is something "which cannot possibly be derived from the animal kingdom."¹⁵ The appearance of mind requires "mind" to explain it.

Man’s Age The length of man’s walk on the earth calls for a revolution in traditional thinking. Unfortunately, Archbishop Ussher’s chronology has been imposed upon the Scriptures and seems often to be accepted as part of the Bible. The once familiar date of 4004 BC. for the creation of man was a result of adding the genealogies in the Old Testament. This no longer can be accepted. Even the very conservative B. B. Warfield wrote that "the question of the antiquity of man has of itself no theological significance."¹⁶ The Bible does not give a date for the beginning of man. The genealogies themselves serve to give only the line of descent, not the length of time for the descent. Warfield further declared, concerning the genealogies :

    “Their symmetrical arrangement in groups often is indicative of their compression; and for all we know instead of 20 generations and some 2,000 years measuring the interval between creation and the birth of Abraham, two hundred generations and something like 20,000 or even 2,000 generations and something like 200,000 years may have intervened. In a word, the Scriptural data leaves us wholly without guidance in estimating the time which elapsed between the creation of the world and the deluge, and between the deluge and the call of Abraham. So far as the Scripture assertions are concerned, we may suppose any length of time to have intervened between these events which may otherwise appear reasonable.”¹⁷

If one is going to accept the biblical accounts with reference to Adam as being historical, then he will have to adjust his thinking about the past. We cannot think of Adam as wearing a blue serge suit and having all the conveniences of modern man. Rather the word "primitive" must be used to describe his existence. If Adam was an existent person, the first man, his primitive state must ante-date that of other such men such as the Neanderthal man. Until some technological advances were made--remember that the first man had much to learn--man would have resorted to primitive dwellings, created crude instruments, and established some means of survival. Even though some reject Adam as being a historical first man, man the first had to begin somewhere. Whenever he did begin he must have been primitive in the true sense of the word. Nevertheless, he was yet man.

We have seen that others reject any possible identification of a historical Adam with primitive man. Brunner does so maintaining that there is no visible chronological continuity of these creatures with the history of Israel. Accepting the story of Adam in Genesis as the story of Everyman, Brunner is not concerned with the age of man or any creature.

Various figures have been proposed for the age of man’s life on earth. The oldest would reach back about five hundred thousand years. This may seem a little high. But the Neanderthals seem to have had some religious life about one hundred thousand years ago. It may be safely said that the further the figure is projected into the past, the less certainty there is. On the other hand, we may say that man is no recent being. One need remember that man was in America as early as 10,000 B.C. Agriculture seems to have originated as early as 8000 B.C.

It must be kept in mind that only God knows how old humans are. We don’t have a birthday announcement concerning Adam and Eve. Anthropologists are influenced by Darwinism and the slow development of man to arrive and in the minds of some this took 1-4 million years. Probably a more fascinating study is that started in the late 80’s and 90’s of the last century when mitochondrial DNA(mtDNA) of women from all over the world was used in the so-called "Eve theory," and the various studies brings the age of women down to around 50,000 years ago, more or less.

Evolution and Creation

Any doctrine of man in the area of theology should consider the subject of evolution. To do so is to invite misunderstanding, misinterpretation, and, if one were to attack the doctrine of evolution undoubtedly he would be labeled an obscurantist, to be compared to a vestigial remain from anti-evolutionary days. The prestige of modern science is so great that for anyone to look askance upon one of its tenets is to ask for trouble.¹⁸ However, criticism there must be; but it must not be motivated solely from religious motives. The telling criticisms, if any, must come from the scientific community, or defects in logic.

Perhaps a beginning point in the dialogue should center around definitions. Evolution as a term is defective. Its ambiguity is nowhere more evident than among biologists themselves. Evolution has come to mean two diverse things--Evolution as a fact and evolution as a faith.

Evolution as a fact: This is a theory about change within the species. Individuals in a species are quite related, although varying slightly from one another. This aspect of the concept of evolution includes the mixing of two species which would give rise to a third, such as the mixing of the golden-winged warbler and the blue-winged warbler producing the hybrid, Lawrence’s warbler. This type of evolution is a proven fact. It has been observed and verified. In this sense, evolution poses no problems for theology. But because of the ambiguity around the term "evolution," some other popular term should be adopted by biologists to be used consistently and universally. Perhaps a term like "development" as opposed to "evolution" might be suggestive. The controversy in evolution comes in the second meaning associated in the term.

Evolution as a faith: Development in biology may be opposed to evolution. The first is based on fact, the second requires a leap of faith. A sketch of this faith is summed up by Theodosius Dobzhansky: "Evolution is a continuous process, composed, though, of small discontinuous mutation steps. From the continuity of evolution it follows, of course, that forms intermediate between the now-living organisms must have existed in the past. Provided that man and the simplest virus are really descended from common ancestors, then, if all organisms which lived in the past were fossilized and recovered, we would see an unbroken chain of organisms intermediate between man and the virus."¹⁹

What is there to say about this faith-sketch? Evolutionists frequently make faith statements in a dogmatic form on the one hand but admit there is no evidence for the statement on the other. Note the following statement:

"The evidence shows conclusively that man arose from forebears who were not men, although we have only the most fragmentary information concerning the stages through which the process has passed."²⁰ The evidence mainly appealed to for support of this conviction is the fossil remains. But of this, Dobzhansky declares that "the fossil record of primates is unfortunately meager." ²¹ Concerning man there are no intermediate fossil remains and there is no evidence, according to Dobzhansky, of more than a "single human or human-like species." ²² But while this is admitted on the one hand, the statement of the evolutionist’s faith is that the evidence is said to be conclusive. In a more candid mood one should simply admit: "I do not have any proof for my belief that man has evolved from an apelike creature, but I believe--and many share this conviction--that this is what happened. I cannot prove it but by applying the fact of the developmental theory of evolution to the appearances of fossil life I believe that life evolved this way. I infer from the known fact to the unknown and I construct my theory on this faith." This is not the general candor of the evolutionist. He does not divide his fact and faith so nicely. Hence the ambiguity in the issue. Evolution as a faith has been criticized in the following ways.

1. Concerning the origin of life. The origin of life is faced with the dictum of Pasteur that presently "life arises only from pre-existing life."²³ Is it possible that Pasteur’s "law" did not apply in the origin of life? It is a tacit conclusion of a philosophy of science that laws do not change with age. A law of nature might be proved to be wrong in due time, but a true law does not become invalid solely on the basis of time change. If Pasteur’s law is true, it becomes an issue for the origin of life as presently conceived by evolutionists. The two proposals that are usually set forth have not succeeded in convincing evolutionists in general. The first is that "spontaneous formation of complex proteins and nucleoproteins" gave rise to the early forms of life. But in spite of declaring that this is "a most improbable event,"²⁴ Dobzhansky takes the leap of faith that with aeons of time the highly improbable will occur, and did occur, and with this faith assumption, life starts its long evolution. The second proposal is that viruses are the link between the living and the non-living, but this is also problematical, for the nature of a virus is parasitic and "no free living viruses are known." ²⁵ At this point, the honesty of many biologists is that they must admit a complex lack of evidence concerning the origin of the first forms of Iife, but their faith in the theory enables them to conceive of life arising in a way that their evidence prohibits at this period. Some express their faith comprehensively, as Simpson, in affirming that "although many details remain to be worked out, it is already evident that all the objective phenomena of the history of life can be explained by purely materialistic factors."²⁶

2. The next problem relates to the appearance of life in the fossil record. It is the general conclusion of biological evolutionists that all the major phyla appeared in the Cambrian Age, about five hundred million years ago, in a period that lasted about eighty million years. The appearance is sudden. The fossils do not record forms suggesting the forms of life before the Cambrian Age, nor do they give us transitional forms. Furthermore, Simpson notes as a fact that the phyla fail to "appear in the order which would be expected as ’ natural’ on the basis of increasing complexity." ²⁷ By applying the known to the unknown, the fact of the present to the unknown of the past, the evolutionist can assume that life evolved before the Cambrian forms appeared. But he has no evidence and should admit that his faith enters his theory. The evolutionists and the creationists meet at this point. Both can affirm nothing more than that life appears in the Cambrian. The first confesses his faith in life evolving previous to the Cambrian forms, while the second may confess that the sudden appearance of life may mean that God created life in what we designate the Cambrian Age. The man of science decries "miracle,"²⁸ but at present his faith that life arose from non-life necessitates a miracle in the same sense that the man of religion does. Both should be aware of what they are doing. Both are making faith statements.

3. The problem of mechanism. Assume for argument’s sake that life has evolved from a few simple cells. There is yet difficulty in explaining how it has come about. Faith enters the picture for the evolutionists again. Two proposals stand against each other with difficulties in each. The majority of biological evolutionists agree that new species "originate through the selection and fixation of small mutations."²⁹ Dobzhansky voices the objection to this in declaring that "mutations do not produce new species. The mutants of Drosophila are still flies which belong to the same species of Drosophila to which their ancestors belonged."³⁰ The second opinion--defended by Goldschmidt, is that development of new species has come about by great mutations. This poses the possibility of a reptile egg hatching a bird. Contrary to this possibility is the general opinion of most evolutionists that "the development of the living world rarely if ever involved major changes produced by single mutational steps."³¹ What causes mutations and how to bring them about is yet an unsolved issue.³² The solution may come or it may not; but, so far, no satisfactory theory is acceptable. The faith of the evolutionist is that it will be solved.

4. The problem of classical evidence. Certain types of evidence are said to support evolution as a faith: ( 1 ) the argument from recapitulation, or embryology; ( 2 ) the evidence of the fossils; ( 3 ) distribution of animals; and (4) comparative anatomy and vestigial remains. While the arguments have been used to support evolution as a faith, they may be understood in a way that does not support evolutionary faith. For example, the tonsils and appendix were once thought to be useless, but more recent evidence indicates that they still have use in the human body for producing antibodies.

It is not our purpose here to review these classical arguments with alternate explanations, for this has been done elsewhere. It is only necessary to note the alternative possibility to indicate that the classical evidence does not necessarily support the faith of the evolutionists. ³³

5. The problem of reductionism. Evolution as a faith labors under the charge of reductionism. Reductionism--attempting to reduce all of reality to one mode of thinking has always been a problem with man in his search for understanding. Evolution as a faith attempts to reduce man’s history of life to a single explanation. The attempt is worthy, but life is too complex and complicated. Against this attempt stands the fact that intermediary forms have not been found. But a popular text used in many colleges declares the faith of the authors that "it is now more reasonable to believe that the intermediate forms have not been found than that they never existed."³⁴

Moreover, the reductionist tendency appears contrary to the evidence that certain forms have not changed for up to four hundred million years. The little marine brachiopod Lingula is one such example ³⁵ It may be assumed that it developed or evolved to its present form from something else. But without evidence to the contrary it may equally be validly assumed that it did not. It depends upon what your theory demands. The evidence of a prior, different form is lacking in the fossil record. Other examples appear in the fossil record which have not changed for similarly long periods of time, and both Dobzhansky and Simpson make several references to them.³⁶ The issue in reductionism is: how far may I carry my theory? Can I impose what is factual concerning development of species to the evolution of phyla or across phyla? The faith of evolution says you may, but the evidence for this is yet missing.

6. Phyla and the "kinds" of Genesis. The earliest evidence of life involves the major phyla. As long as the evolutionist does not insist on his faith centering on a single cell beginning point, there may be more in common between evolution and the religious document in Genesis than at first appears. The Bible records that God created "kinds," a term without an exact biological synonym, but which may hold some counterpart to the broad term like phyla. This points up part of the misunderstanding between the creationists and the evolutionists. The creationists readily admit development within the phyla from the simple to the complex but reject the faith-proposition of some evolutionists that life has evolved across phyla. The issue here is the same as in the problem of reductionism : how far may I apply my particular theory on species to the general story of phyla?

7. The view from a physicist. One physicist, Paul Davies, a popularizer of issues in science, has written a number of books on cosmology issues. He wrote,

"through my scientific work I have come to believe more and more strongly that the physical universe is put together with an ingenuity so astonishing that I cannot accept it merely as a brute face. There must, it seems to me, be a deeper level of explanation. Whether one wishes to called deeper level "God" is a matter of taste and definition. Furthermore I have to come to the point of view that mind--i.e., conscious awareness of the world--is not a meaningless and incidently quirk of nature, but an absolutely fundamental facet of reality."³⁷ Davies asks the question: "If the world is rational, at least in large measure, what is the origin of that rationality. It cannot arise solely in our minds, because our minds merely reflect what is already there."³⁸ Davies raises serious questions about orthodox evolutionary beliefs. He wrote:

“It is hard to see how a molecule like RNA or DNA, containing many thousands of carefully arranged atoms, could come into existence spontaneously if it was incapable, in the absence of proteins, of doing anything (in particular, of reproducing). But it is equally unlikely that nucleic acid and proteins came into existence by accident at the same time and fortuitously discovered an efficient symbiotic relationship. The high degree of improbability of the formation of life by accidental molecular shuffling has been compared by Fred Hoyle to a whirlwind passing through an aircraft factory and blowing scattered components into a functioning Boeing 747. It is easy to estimate the odds against random permutations of molecules assembling DNA. It is about l0- Matthew,000 to one against. That is the same as tossing a coin and achieving heads roughly 130,000 times in a row."³⁹ Davies puts the problem of mechanism of change and the issue of origins in the following perspectives:

“As we have seen, all life involves cooperation between nucleic acids and proteins. Nucleic acids carry the genetic information, but they cannot on their own do anything. They are chemically incompetent. The actual work is carried out by the proteins with their remarkable catalytic abilities. But the proteins are themselves assembled according to instructions carried by the nucleic acids....Even if a physical mechanism were discovered that could somehow assemble a DNA molecule, it would be useless unless another mechanism simultaneously surrounded it with relevant proteins. Yet it hard to conceive that the complete interlocking system was produced spontaneously in a single step."⁴⁰ A few pages later Davies notes:

“It is possible to perform rough calculations of the probability that the endless breakup and reforming of the soul’s complex molecules would lead to a small virus after a billion years. Such are the enormous number of different possible chemical combinations that the odds work out at over 10-2,000,000 to one against. This mind-numbing number is more than the chances against flipping heads on a coin six million times in a row. Changing from a virus to some hypothetical simpler replicator could improve the odds considerable, but with a number like this it doesn’t change the conclusion: the spontaneous generation of life by random molecular shuffling is a ludicrously improbable event." ⁴¹

8. In recent years a new movement called Intelligent Design (ID) has come into existence. It has as it goal the importance of showing the weaknesses and inadequacies of Neo-Darwinism as well as the possibilities of showing that the world needs a better explanation than naturalism. The understanding of the world in all its complexity requires some understanding of intelligent design. Since the rise of molecular biology life is now known to be far more complex than Darwin knew. The charge of many naturalistic biologist in rejecting intelligent design is that it raises the question of religion, however, there are people who reject Darwinism who are not religious. Michael Denton published Evolution: A theory in Crisis and had no theological claims to make. Michael Behe published Darwin’s Black Box arguing that something are so irreducibly complex that all the parts have to be in place to function. Simple example is the mouse trap. One cannot catch mice with a wood pad. Adding a piece of metal will not do it, nor a level, nor the catch. Only having all of them together can one catch a mouse. This simple example is multiplied in its complexity in molecular biology A basic difference between naturalistic Darwinian and ID people may be seen in the oft quoted state of Richard Dawkins, "Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appears of having been designed for a purpose." but according to Dawkins they are not. ID people look at the same materials and conclude that they have been designed for a purpose. ID people do not infer God’s existence but do maintain that intelligence is expressed in the complex, information-rich order of biology. A body of literature has been developing from a variety of persons.

Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, (Bethesda,Md: Adler and Adler, 1985); Phillip Johnson, Darwin on Trial, (Downers Grove,Il: InterVarsity Press,1991), Michael Behe, Darwin’s Black Box, (Simon and Schuster, 1998) William Dembski, Intelligent Design: thebridge between science and theology, and Design Inference, Cambridge Univ. Press, 1998) and Icons of Evolution by Jonathan Wells, and Jody F.Sjogren (illustrator). and others. In light of the above problems, various comments may be made. The faith aspect must be recognized in the second facet of evolutionary theory. In light of this the evolutionist should not look down his nose at other people who reject or hesitate to affirm his theory because of the lack of evidence. He should have equal respect for those who have faith that it did not happen the way he outlines, but who may have faith that the appearance of life is related to God, who initiates it and directs it.

There are decisive ethical implications for the larger theory of evolution, and evolutionists apparently seem to smart under the charges, for many of them devote some few pages to developing an evolutionary ethic.

Evolution with its associated tendency toward materialism has a direct bearing on ethics, for what a man thinks concerning metaphysics--the nature of life, man, the universe, and God--is directly connected with how he lives life. It is significant that Adolf Hitler was highly captivated with evolutionary teachings, and the German Youth Movement was indoctrinated with these views. Nazi Germany, in part, is the consequence of it. The Soviet Union likewise officially sponsors materialistic evolutionary views. Karl Marx read Darwin in 1860 and wanted to dedicate his Das Kapital to Darwin who declined the honor. Mussolini likewise was influenced by evolutionary theory. It is true that other factors influenced the lives and events of these men, but it remains a truism that a man lives the way he thinks. A well-known philosopher has raised again the issues in evolution. Mortimer J. Adler, director of the Institute for Philosophical Research in Chicago, assesses the problem as follows: Evolution supposes that man is a creature among other creatures. If he is different, it is a superficial difference, not a radical difference. Without the radical difference between man and the brutes "those who now oppose injurious discrimination on the moral ground that all human beings, being equal in their humanity, should be treated equally in all those respects that concern their common humanity, would have no solid basis in fact to support their normative principle. A social and political idea that has operated with revolutionary force in human history could be validly dismissed as a hollow illusion that should become defunct."⁴²

Adler proceeds to say that various scales may be erected for evaluating humans, and on this basis he asks, "Why, then, should not groups of superior men be able to justify their enslavement, exploitation, or even genocide of inferior human groups, on factual and moral grounds akin to those that we now rely on to justify our treatment of the animals that we harness as beasts of burden, that we butcher for food and clothing, or that we destroy as disease-bearing pests or as dangerous predators?"⁴³

Evolution as it is presently held does not allow for radical discontinuity--that is, for an immaterial element such as spirit or soul-- between man and the beast and therefore it cannot allow for a radical difference between them. This means then that ethics as it has commonly been conceived is a logical impossibility as the inferences are drawn concerning man’s evolutionary arrival. The fact that evolutionists attempt to develop some form of ethics for man is inconsistent with evolutionary philosophy. Ethics becomes transformed in the process from being related to what is right and wrong in relation to God to a system of behavior that is functional for the preserving of life and harmony in society. The alternative to this position is the reaffirmation of the ingredients of traditional theism in which man is a unique person, a special creation, a being who will share life with God in eternity, and who has free will and moral responsibility. Here alone is the real meaning for ethics, for treatment of man as equal, for personhood, and teleology or purpose in life. Here too is the basis for meaningful civilization. The final statement should refer all of this back to the story of man’s origin, our main concern in this section. What can we say? The only meaningful thing is that man appeared on the face of the earth at one point in geologic history. There is no evidence concerning the "how" of his arrival. How did he arrive there? The faith of the Christian urges him to say with the Scriptures--God created. No fossil evidence can give us the fingerprints of God. The faith of the evolutionists urges him to say that man has evolved from some prior form. But he too is without the print of the intermediate form. Both must be aware of what they are doing. The Image of God The Bible declares that man was made in the image and likeness of God (Gen 1:26-27; Gen 5:1; Gen 9:6). What does it mean to be in God’s image? ⁴⁴ First, it does not mean a physical image. There are those, Mormons, for example, who speak of God as having a physical form. To contemplate God in physical form does violence to the Bible as well as to misunderstand the use of anthropomorphic expressions. Statements like the arms, eyes, and ears of God are anthropomorphic; that is, to speak of God in human terms for the sake of communication. The Bible also speaks of the wings of God, God as a rock, but nobody wishes to literalize these as they do the others, for that would be going too far. Jesus spoke of God as Spirit (John 4:24), and Spirit alone is able to do the works of God. Spirit alone as a term is able to convey the highest meaning for the being of God. To conceive of God as having a physical body is to reject the words of Jesus.

Second, the image of God has been defined in terms of qualities or substances. Berkhof sums up the image of God in man as consisting of the

"... soul or spirit of man, that is, in the qualities of simplicity, spirituality, invisibility, and immortality. (b) In the psychical powers or faculties of man as a rational and moral being, namely, the intellect and the will with their functions. © In the intellectual and moral integrity of man’s nature, revealing itself in true knowledge, righteousness, and holiness ( Eph 4:24; Col 3:10 ) . ( d ) In the body, not as a material substance, but as the fit organ of the soul, sharing its immortality; and as the instrument through which man can exercise dominion over the lower creation. (e) In man’s dominion over the earth” ⁴⁵

Third, Roman Catholic theology has generally drawn a distinction between image and likeness. Roman Catholic writers have generally followed Irenaeus who made this distinction in the second century. The first man was created with two types of life, the natural life which corresponds to the image idea, and the supernatural life which is the likeness of God. The supernatural life is composed of sanctifying grace, with hope, charity, and the moral virtues of justice, prudence, temperance, and fortitude.⁴⁶ When man sinned, he lost the supernatural life or the likeness while retaining the natural life or the image. The natural image of God involves freedom, spirituality, and immortality of the soul. In evaluating the Roman view, the first question centers around the legitimacy of making a distinction between likeness and image. The distinction rests upon unsound grammatical use because the Hebrew language is quite repetitive in nature, and repetition only gives fulness of thought rather than differences in the qualitative makeup of man. A second objection involves what sin did to the nature of man. Barth is correct in saying that man "cannot achieve any essential alteration of the human nature which he has been given." ⁴⁷ Again, he declared, "Sin is not creative." ⁴⁸ The effects of sin point up a basic difference between Thomist (Roman Catholic) and Reformed thought. The Roman theologian would say that man is deprived; that is, his supernatural life has been taken away. The Reformers asserted that man is depraved; that is, man’s actions are permeated by sin. The Thomist position implies that man is not complete now in nature but is corrupted by sin.

Fourth, the imago dei (image of God) is not a substance but a relationship. This concept begins with Kant’s dictum that a person is a responsible being. One cannot look at man as an isolated individual complete in himself. Instead, he is an individual-in-community and has his meaning in responsibility to the Thou. Thus man is still in the image of God; even when he is godless, he is still responsible. Sin does not diminish his responsibility; on the contrary, the greater the sin the greater his responsibility. Thus the "freedom of man is never freedom to repudiate his responsibility before God. It is never freedom to sin."⁴⁹ This view has certain advantages. First, all men are created equal in the image of God---they are all responsible creatures. Inequality in talents increases the need for personal responsibility in the community of God. Second, man cannot change his nature in sin. He may deny it, rebel against his Creator, but he is still man-in-responsibility. Third, it does not have one of the problems that the traditional viewpoint has. The Reformers spoke of a relic of the image of God which was quite defaced. When a pessimistic view is pushed to its extreme it is difficult to explain some of the virtuous acts of man. Without concluding that man is always virtuous, this view recognizes that man "bears witness to his original relation with God;" ⁵⁰ man is still responsible. Fourth, the individual as responsible necessarily incorporates elements of the other views such as rationality and spirituality, for only persons have accountability to God.

Chapter 9.1 The Nature of Man ¹ Emil Brunner, Man in Revolt (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1947), p. 37.

² Ibid., p. 33.

³ Barth, Church Dogmatics, III-2, 30.

⁴ Ibid., p. 43

⁵ Ibid., p. 48.

⁶ Niebuhr, op. cit., I, 146.

7 Bernard Ramm, The Christian View of Science and the Scripture, Wiseman, Creation Revealed in Six Days, Russell Mixter, Evolution and Christian Thought, and Modern Science and the Christian Faith ⁸ Paul Tillich, Systematic Theology (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1963), II, 31.

⁹ Brunner declares that the simple story of man’s coming into being points up a fourfold truth: "Body and mind belong equally to the nature of man, neither is to be deduced from the other, the spirit is `from above’ and the body `from below’-and, this is the most important, they are both destined for each other, and in a definite way adapted to one another."-Man in Revolt, p. 374.

¹⁰ Cf. Rom 5:14; 1Co 15:22; 1Co 15:45; 1Ti 2:13-14; Jude 1:14.

11 Niebuhr, op. cit., I, 55.

¹² James Orr, God’s Image in Man (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Colossians, 1948), p. 62.

¹³ Christian Doctrine of Creation and Redemption, p. 81.

¹⁴ Op.cit., p65 ¹⁵ Christian Doctrine of Creation and Redemption, p. 80.

¹⁶Biblical and Theological Studies, ed. Samuel G. Craig (Philadelphia: Presbyterian & Reformed Colossians, 1952), p. 238.

¹⁷ Ibid.,p.247 ¹⁸ Cf. Anthony Standen, Science Is a Sacred Cow (New York: E. P. Dutton Colossians, 1958).

¹⁹ Evolution, Genetics and Man (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1966), p. 285.

²⁰ Ibid., p. 319

²¹ Ibid., p.325 ²² Ibid., p. 333

²³ Ibid., p. 17

²⁴ Ibid., p.19

²⁵ Ibid., p. 14. If success crowns the continuing attempts to synthesize life, philosophers will be posed with renewing the old question: what is the nature of matter? It may be that matter is no longer "just matter," but as it is reduced down to sub-atomic particles it may be much more "mental" than material. The idealist may find more support for his thesis that life is ultimately mind. If the scientist takes "so-called matter" to produce life which grows and reproduces with some direction, the old question will be raised: from what sources did it receive its pattern of growth? Is it possible that every particle of our universe is more "alive" in a way we have never thought possible or dreamed of? Will we have to discard the opposites of mind and matter?

²⁶George Gaylord Simpson, The Meaning of Evolution (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1949), p. 343.

²⁷ Ibid., p. 31.

²⁸ Cf. Ibid., p.16 ²⁹ Thomas S. Hall and Florence Moog, Life Science (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1955 ), p. 441.

³⁰Evolution, Genetics and Man, p. 83.

³¹ Ibid., p.84 ³² Ibid., p. 86

³³ Cf. Robert E. D. Clark, Darwin: Before and After (Grand Rapids: International Publications, 1958), pp. 168-87; and Modern Science and Christian Faith (Wheaton: Scripture Press, 1948), pp. 58-98.

³⁴ Hall and Moog, op. cit., p. 442.

³⁵ Dobzhansky, op. cit., p. 296.

³⁶ Cf. ibid.

³⁷ Paul Davies, The Mind of God, (The scientific basis for a rational world), New York: Simon and Schuster, 1992, p.16) ³⁸ Ibid., p. 25 ³⁹ Paul Davies, Are We alone? (New York: Orion Publications, 1995, p.27 ⁴⁰ Paul Davies, The Cosmic Blueprint, New York: Simon and Schuster, 1988, p. 116.

⁴¹ Ibid., p. 118

⁴² Mortimer J. Adler, The Difference of Man and the Difference It Make (New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1967), p. 263.

⁴³ Ibid., p.264

⁴⁴ `"The Biblical doctrine that man was made in the image of God and after His likeness is naturally given no precise psychological elaboration in the Bible itself. Nor does Biblical psychology ever achieve the careful distinctions of Greek thought."-Niebuhr, op. cit., p. 151.

⁴⁵ Berkhof, op. cit., p. 207.

⁴⁶ F. J. Sheed, Theology and Sanity (New York: Sheed & Ward, 1953 ), p. 157.

⁴⁷ Church Dogmatics, III-2, 227.

⁴⁸ Ibid., p.206 ⁴⁹ Ibid., p. 197 ⁵⁰ Brunner, Man in Revolt, p. 105.