84 Sermon Illustrations on Creationism

Once upon a time, a long time ago, there lived a village of warrior hobbits. No more than three feet tall or so, they dwelled in caves and hunted down dragons and pygmy elephants with stone weaponry.

I was forced to rub my eyes, shake my head, and check once again that I was reading the Associated Press, and not a supermarket tabloid. But there it was, originally announced in NATURE magazine and soon likewise plastered across the pages of newspapers and magazines around the world.

Archaeologists discovered the remains of these little people on the Indonesian island of Flores. They named them Homo floresiensis, but they were quickly nicknamed “Hobbits.” Scientists found remains of Komodo dragons and large rodents that had been cooked in cave fires. Scientists assure us that these little “hominids” died out about 13,000 years ago, and that they were descendents of Homo erectus, the alleged evolutionary ancestor of modern humans.

So how do Christians explain these bones in light of the Book of Genesis? Are not these remains one more blow to a biblical revelation that tells us all humanity descended from one man who was created from the dust, probably less than 10,000 years ago?

Well, no. As a matter of fact, these remains should remind Christians of just how incoherent much of contemporary science is when it comes to questions of human origins.

Scientists right now are debating how to fit the Flores Lilliputians into existing Darwinian schemes of an “out of Africa” evolution of Homo erectus into Homo sapiens. Given these findings, scientists must rewrite their version of the human story, again. This should remind us of how senseless it is to be intimidated by the “facts” of scientific “proof” against a biblical cosmology. Scientific investigations into origins, from abstract theories to dating mechanisms, are based on numerous naturalistic presuppositions and are constantly being revised and updated.

This should cause Christians to assert without embarrassment that the little people of Flores were human beings, descendants of Adam, bearing the image of God. They were smaller than us, but we have encountered pygmy groups before. We can also argue on the basis of biblical revelation that they probably lived much more recently than the archeologists tell us.

The overwhelming proof of weaponry and mastery of fire is also a bit embarrassing to some contemporary scientific theories. This just doesn't match up with what scientists believe is possible, given the brain size of the Hobbits. You can be sure, that if the incontrovertible remains of cooked Komodo dragons and weapons had not been found, scientists would have portrayed Homo floresiensis as a wandering savage. And now there is the question of how these little people actually got to this isolated island, leading some scientists to speculate that they may have even had watercraft.

This should bring back memories of contemporary science “debunking” the existence of biblical people groups and cities, only to find later archaeological proof of them. It should also cause us to rethink the reigning human story given to us by the scientific establishment. Many of us, including Christians, tend to think of primeval human history in terms of primitive savagery. And yet, Scripture presents us with a counter-story of a technologically advanced early human civilization -- able to develop agricultural innovations (Gen 4:2), great cities (Gen 4:17), and towering architectural achievements (Gen 11:4-6). Indeed, as we survey the remnants of earlier civilizations -- from Egyptian pyramids to Mayan temples -- perhaps we should ask ourselves if early human history was not far more advanced than the naturalists tell us is possible.

There are other factors at work. For hundreds of years local Indonesian legends have told of cave-dwelling little people on the islands, legends scientists ignored as ignorant superstition. Now they know that there is some basis in fact, even thought the scientists still want to date the Flores Hobbits in the too-distant past. Could it be that this demonstrates once again the chronological and technological snobbery of Western science? We assume reflexively that people in the distant past were senseless and that their memories and stories are all just so much nonsense.

But what if we're wrong? After all, people groups all over the world have “legends” of a global flood, legends scientists dismiss as superstition. Psychologists have joined the fray, arguing that flood “sagas” are part of a collective unconscious mythology or, in one theory, have their roots in the human childhood experience of bedwetting. But what if these stories are so universal precisely because the Flood actually happened? Moreover, what if other ancient “legends” have more veracity than scientists would have us believe?

This pile of little bones serves to remind us that all of us view the cosmos through a grid. Much of the scientific establishment views the evidence through the grid of a worldview that excludes from the beginning the possibility of the supernatural.

Christians, however, must view the cosmos through the grid of a biblical storyline that makes sense of both human dignity and cosmic tragedy. This means that Christians are able to account for phenomena that the grid of naturalism can never see. This means that Christians should never be embarrassed by what contemporary culture ridicules as remnants of an ancient superstitious “saga” of a primeval garden, a talking Serpent, a flaming sword.

But it also means that Christians should survey the world with awe and wonder at the mysterious creativity of a God who designed for us supernovas, waterfalls, electrons, dinosaurs, diamonds, and, yes, perhaps even a Hobbit or two.

________

Russell D. Moore is dean of the school of theology and senior vice president for academic administration at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky.

*

Do you ever find yourself saying, “I wish so-and-so were still around?” Well, I wish the astronomer Carl Sagan were still around. He died in 1996, but had he lived, he would have found an extraordinary book, THE PRIVILEGED PLANET, by astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez and philosopher Jay Richards, deeply challenging — maybe even disturbing.

Here's why: In his frequent appearances on the TONIGHT SHOW, and in his public television series COSMOS, Sagan was presented as the visionary sage of science. He spoke cheerfully of being inspired by the vastness of the universe and our growing scientific knowledge of our place in it.

Ironically, however, Sagan's cheerful demeanor didn't fit his message of cosmic loneliness. Earth has no “special significance,” he said — it's merely one tiny planet going around an unremarkable star, in an equally unremarkable galaxy, adrift in a universe filled with billions of such galaxies. “Our planet,” he wrote, “is a lonely speck in the great enveloping cosmic dark. In our obscurity ... there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves.”

Sagan's picture of an insignificant, almost accidental Earth reflects a widely held and rather bleak assumption in modern science. Called the Copernican Principle, or the Principle of Mediocrity, this assumption says that the Earth isn't special at all.

Now, the Bible places a high value on the virtue of humility, so Christians might be tempted to agree with this picture: Maybe we're not so significant after all. But there's all the difference in the world between seeking real humility (indeed a virtue) — and arguing, as Sagan did, for human insignificance by assuming the universe exists for no purpose. Furthermore, the first question anybody should ask (Christian or not) about assumptions like the Principle of Mediocrity is this: Is it true? Or is a materialistic philosophy being promoted in the name of science?

That's exactly the question that Gonzalez and Richards pursue in THE PRIVILEGED PLANET. And now their book has inspired a stunning new science documentary. What makes the production so wonderfully refreshing is the spirit of scientific freedom and open intellectual inquiry motivating it.

Using state-of-the-art computer animations, awe-inspiring astronomical footage, and interviews with leading scientists, including Robert Jastrow and Paul Davies, the documentary draws a strikingly different picture from the Sagan image of mediocrity. We learn how many things you need to get a planet, like Earth. It takes just the right atmosphere, plate tectonics, a large moon, well-placed planetary neighbors, in the exact right location in a spiral galaxy, and much, much more.

That alone is interesting. But there's another surprise. Earth also provides the best conditions for scientific discovery. Did you catch that? The very place with intelligent beings is also the best place for scientific discovery. According to the evidence marshaled by Gonzalez and Richards, the universe is, literally, designed for discovery.

Young Carl Sagans need to consider THE PRIVILEGED PLANET. And believers will be encouraged that science is finally discovering what we knew all along — we are a specially blessed people.

FOR FURTHER READING AND INFORMATION:

• The new DVD/video “The Privileged Planet” is a useful resource for students and teachers in learning about the evidence of design in the universe (narrated by John Rhys-Davies of The Lord of the Rings films).

• Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay Richards, The Privileged Planet (Regnery, 2004).

• The videos “Unlocking the Mystery of Life“ and “Icons of Evolution“ are also great resources for students and teachers.

• See BreakPoint's Intelligent Design research and information page at http://www.pfm.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Issues_and_Research_Pages&Template=/TaggedPage/TaggedPageDisplay.cfm&TPLID=81&ContentID=12086

• See Chuck Colson's Ten Questions about Origins, a helpful tool for students.

• Lee Strobel, The Case for a Creator (Zondervan, 2004).

________

Copyright (c) 2004 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint with Chuck Colson" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

*

A Harris Poll reveals that 64 percent of American adults believe “human beings were created directly by God,” while only 22 percent believe they “evolved from earlier species.”

Those on the battle field in the nation's schools, where the debate over teaching evolution, creation and intelligent design continues, may be interested that of those surveyed, more than half believe children should be taught about all three. Of the remaining, 23 percent support teaching creationism only, 12 percent evolution only and four percent intelligent design only.

Other key findings from the poll include:

A majority of U.S. adults (54%) do not think human beings developed from earlier species, up from 46 percent in 1994.

Forty-nine percent of adults believe plants and animals have evolved from some other species while 45 percent do not believe that.

Adults are evenly divided about whether or not apes and man have a common ancestry (46 percent believe we do and 47 percent believe we do not).

Again divided, 46 percent of adults agree that “Darwin's theory of evolution is proven by fossil discoveries,” while 48 percent disagree.

*

[This article is a summary of HolwickID #29802]

Evangelical Christianity and evolution are incompatible beliefs that cannot be held together logically within a distinctly Christian worldview, R. Albert Mohler Jr. says in the Aug. 15, 2005, edition of TIME magazine.

TIME solicited the views of four experts with different answers to the question “Can you believe in God and evolution?” Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky, comments from an evangelical Christian perspective.

Other participants include Francis Collins of the Human Genome Research Institute who argues for theistic evolution, Harvard University psychology professor Steven Pinker who articulates the naturalistic evolutionary position, and Lehigh University professor Michael Behe who makes a case for intelligent design.

Mohler, a young-Earth creationist, says the Bible is clear about the way in which God created the earth in six days. He argues that Christianity and evolution offer opposing views of human origins.

“Given the human tendency toward inconsistency, there are people who will say they hold both positions,” Mohler writes. “But you cannot coherently affirm the Christian-truth claim and the dominant model of evolutionary theory at the same time.

“...I believe the Bible is adequately clear about how God created the world, and that its most natural reading points to a six-day creation that included not just the animal and plant species but the earth itself.

“But there have always been Evangelicals who asserted that it might have taken longer. What they should not be asserting is the idea of God's having set the rules for evolution and then stepped back. And even less so, the model held by much of the scientific academy: of evolution as the result of a random process of mutation and selection.”

Pinker argues that the moral design of nature “is as bungled as its engineering design,” evidence itself that life did not arise from an intelligent and good creator.

“Many people who accept evolution still feel that a belief in God is necessary to give life meaning and to justify morality,” Pinker says. “But that is exactly backward. In practice, religion has given us stonings, inquisitions and 9/11. Morality comes from a commitment to treat others as we wish to be treated, which follows from the realization that none of us is the sole occupant of the universe. Like physical evolution, it does not require a white-coated technician in the sky.”

Behe says he does not reject Darwinian evolution on theological grounds but disagrees with it for scientific reasons. God could have made life any way He wanted to, says Behe, a Roman Catholic.

“I think God could have made life using apparently random mutation and natural selection,” Behe writes. “But my reading of the scientific evidence is that he did not do it that way, that there was a more active guiding.

“I think that we are all descended from some single cell in the distant past but that that cell and later parts of life were intentionally produced as the result of intelligent activity. As a Christian, I say that intelligence is very likely to be God.”

Collins, who considers himself a Christian, says believers may view evolution as a bona fide explanation for the origin of the universe.

“I see no conflict in what the Bible tells me about God and what science tells me about nature,” Collins says. “...I do not find the wording of Genesis 1 and 2 to suggest a scientific textbook but a powerful and poetic description of God’s intentions in creating the universe. The mechanism of creation is left unspecified.”

But theistic evolution usurps the biblical teaching of man being made in the image of God, Mohler says. Evangelicals must affirm the special creation of humans by the sovereign Creator who rules, cares for and governs His creation, Mohler says. The God of Scripture is not merely a “blind watchmaker” who steps back from His creation and watches in a detached fashion, Mohler says.

Stalwart evolutionists in recent years have moved away from theories that involve God, Mohler points out. While he disagrees vigorously with their views, Mohler says the evolutionist’s rejection of God and embrace of pure naturalism is more consistent than theistic evolution’s attempt to wed the God of the Bible with natural selection.

“I think it's interesting that many of evolution's most ardent academic defenders have moved away from the old claim that evolution is God's means to bring life into being in its various forms,” he says.

“More of them are saying that a truly informed belief in evolution entails a stance that the material world is all there is and that the natural must be explained in purely natural terms. They're saying that anyone who truly feels this way must exclude God from the story. I think their self-analysis is correct. I just couldn't disagree more with their premise.”

It's happening again: another scientist, another academic institution, another attempt to stifle freedom of thought. The “Darwinist inquisition,” as a Discovery Institute press release calls it, is as predictable as it is relentless.

This time the setting is Iowa State University. One hundred twenty professors there have signed a statement denouncing the study of intelligent design and calling on all faculty members to reject it. The statement reads, in part, “We, the undersigned faculty members at Iowa State University, reject all attempts to represent Intelligent Design as a scientific endeavor. ... Whether one believes in a creator or not, views regarding a supernatural creator are, by their very nature, claims of religious faith, and so not within the scope or abilities of science.”

I don't think I'm exaggerating when I say that this thing is getting out of control. To begin with, the reasoning of the Iowa State professors is, frankly, some of the weakest I've ever seen. They give three reasons for rejecting intelligent design. The first is what they call “the arbitrary selection of features claimed to be engineered by a designer” — which, even if that were true, would prove nothing. If certain features were chosen arbitrarily for study, how does that prove that no other features showed evidence of design? The number two reason given is “unverifiable conclusions about the wishes and desires of that designer.” That is a dubious claim; most serious intelligent design theorists have made very few conclusions about any such “wishes and desires.”

But the third reason is my favorite: They say it is “an abandonment by science of methodological naturalism.” Now this gets to the heart of the matter. The statement goes so far as to claim, “Methodological naturalism, the view that natural phenomena can be explained without reference to supernatural beings or events, is the foundation of the sciences.” I'll be the first to admit I'm not a scientist, but I thought that the heart of the sciences was the study of natural phenomena to gather knowledge of the universe. I thought we were supposed to start without any foregone conclusions about the supernatural at all, that is, if we wanted to be truly scientific.

It seems to me that the intelligent design theorists aren't the ones trying to inject religion and philosophy into the debate — the Darwinists are, starting out with predetermined conclusions.

But it gets even better than that. The Iowa State fracas started because one astronomy professor there, Dr. Guillermo Gonzalez, has attracted attention with a book on intelligent design. It's a little odd to accuse Gonzalez of being unscientific; he's a widely published scientist whose work has made the cover of Scientific American. But that's exactly what's happening. And here's the kicker: Gonzalez barely mentions intelligent design in the classroom. He wants to wait until the theory has more solid support among scientists. All he's doing is researching and writing about it.

Now the lesson here for all of us is very clear: Don't be intimidated when confronting school boards or biology teachers about teaching intelligent design. All we are asking is that science pursue ALL the evidence. That's fair enough. But that's what drives them into a frenzy, as we see in Iowa.

________

Copyright (c) 2005 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint with Chuck Colson" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

*

Parents in Dover, Pennsylvania, have sued to block the teaching of intelligent design ordered by the school board. They claim that intelligent design “effectively promotes the Bible's view of creation.” For them, what's happening there in Dover and elsewhere is merely an attempt to get “Christian creationism” in through the back door.

Tenzin Gyatso would probably be surprised to learn that he's promoting “Christian creationism.” It's true that his new book criticizes what he calls “radical scientific materialism.” And, like Phillip Johnson, the Berkeley professor, he doesn't hesitate to point out that the materialistic worldview is every bit as metaphysical as a theistic one.

Still, it's absurd to label Gyatso's work a stalking horse for “Christian creationism.” After all, if you call him by his proper title, he is the 14th Dalai Lama.

In his new book, THE UNIVERSE IN A SINGLE ATOM, the Dalai Lama warns readers about the consequences of seeing people as “the products of pure chance in the random combination of genes.” This materialistic account is “an invitation to nihilism and spiritual poverty.” Correct.

He writes that “the view that all aspects of reality can be reduced to matter and its various particles is ... as much a metaphysical position as the view that an organizing intelligence created and controls reality.” What's more, he insists that both “are legitimate interpretations of science.”

If this sounds familiar, it ought to: These are the very arguments that we have made here at “BreakPoint” and that other proponents of intelligent design make. In view of the profound differences between Tibetan Buddhism and Christianity, it simply isn't credible to dismiss intelligent design as simply “a repackaging of [Christian] creationism.”

The Dalai Lama is not the only one whose writings make comparisons between the Dover trial and the Scopes trial ridiculous. As the NEW YORK TIMES puts it, you would get much the same from Pope Benedict XVI.

The other misrepresentation that can't withstand scrutiny is the one that depicts advocates of intelligent design as being opposed to scientific inquiry. In this version, what's happening in Dover, Pennsylvania, is “objective” science pitted against religious dogma.

Nothing could be further from the truth. We welcome scientific inquiry. We want our kids to learn more about evolution, not less. We want them to understand both its strengths and its weaknesses.

What we oppose is the idea that nothing can be taught that challenges the belief that materialism accounts for everything from the beginning to the end. It's not a scientific claim; it's a philosophical or metaphysical one. Like the Dalai Lama, we oppose metaphysics being taught under the guise of science.

It is the close-minded academics who are being dogmatic, foreclosing scientific inquiry. They call even the merest mention of scientific evidence suggesting that life couldn't have arisen as a result of an unplanned, random process as “religion,” and they throw it out.

Now, this debate isn't about science. It's about the philosophy of materialism, which insists that it alone answers all of life's questions. It will countenance no rivals. It will smear its dissenters — even, now, the soft-spoken monk from Tibet.

________

Copyright (c) 2005 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint with Chuck Colson" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

On March 15, mathematician John D. Barrow joined the likes of Mother Teresa and Alexander Solzhenitsyn when he was named the winner of this year's Templeton Prize. The prize is awarded for “progress towards research or discoveries about spiritual realities.”

What constitutes “progress” is as varied as the recipients themselves. I received the award in 1993, so it includes prison ministers and nuns ministering to the poor in Calcutta and noted scientists.

Barrow, who teaches at Cambridge University, is the latest in a recent series of scientists to win the prize. He is best known for his work on what is called the “Anthropic Principle.”

Simply stated, the Anthropic Principle is an account of the “seemingly incredible coincidences that allow for our presence” in the Universe. The existence of carbon-based life, which is what humans are, is dependent on a series of independent variables, what Astronomer Royal Martin Rees calls “just six numbers.” These include “the particular energy state of the electron to the exact level of the weak nuclear force,” to name but two.

If any of these values were off by even an infinitesimal amount, carbon-based life like us would be impossible — so would science, which is the act of observing nature. Barrows argues that the universe that “emerged out of the big bang ... was already governed by laws that were fine-tuned to encourage the rise of carbon-based life forms.”

This is what prompted Freeman Dyson, “the best physicist never to win a Nobel Prize,” to say that “it appears that the universe knew we were coming.”

Not surprisingly, this kind of talk makes today's evolutionary establishment — orthodox materialists, after all — nervous because it suggests that perhaps blind chance and purposelessness don't govern the cosmos. This prompted evolutionists to look for an alternative to the Anthropic Principle, one that would keep intelligence and purpose out of the picture.

Since the incredible fine-tuning of THIS universe can't be scientifically denied, the alternatives they looked to were STAR TREK stuff. They posited the existence of multiple universes, and given an infinite number of universes, so they say, at least one of them will be fine-tuned in a way that makes carbon-based life possible.

The key word there is GIVEN, which, by definition, means we can't prove their existence. The “alternatives” are nothing but mathematical models that can neither be proven nor disproved. So, as philosopher Karl Popper wrote, this makes them METAphysics, not physics — in a word, SPECULATION.

Ironically, this is the very charge directed by many of these same people at the intelligent design movement — that we are introducing religion or metaphysics. Yet, while the intelligent design movement is ruled out-of-bounds, this kind of speculation, whose true goal is to avoid thinking about the possibility of God, is regarded as the scientific cutting edge.

This unwillingness of many scientists to consider the implications of the Anthropic Principle made Barrow's work risky, courageous, and significant. Our congratulations to the Templeton committee for honoring such an eminent scientist, whose scientific work affirms that the idea of a Creator is the “best explanation” for the universe.

________

Copyright (c) 2006 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint with Chuck Colson" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

*

One has to admire attempts by religious adherents to allow discoveries in science to effect their theological positions. Often the opposite cannot be said for scientists even though religious sentiment is grounded in intuitions about reality, and science also relies on intuitions. When it comes to evolutionary theory many religious thinkers have also tried to embrace the science and find a theological consilience with it. This has led many adherents to reject young earth creationism and the literal interpretation of scripture with regard to origins and organic change.

For many years from Darwin’s day his theory seemed to be the best explanation how species came to be. This obviously created a challenge for theists because it seemed to undercut God’s activity in the emergence of life. For many the seeming metaphysical underpinnings of Darwinian theory were applied to reality in general, calling into question special providence itself. The theological reaction to this among prominent theistic theologians resulted in attempts to “save” divine providence. In my view, theistic evolution is among these attempts. For those theologians who accepted the notion of Darwinian theory that evolutionary change is the result of chance and necessity, how can divine action which is so fundamental to theism be “saved” and do these attempts really fit systematically within a theistic framework?

If one looks at the theology of theistic evolutionists it is obvious that there is a tremendous struggle going on. How can the God of theism be seen as personally engaged in reality in general and biotic reality in particular when only chance and necessity are the causal factors? This struggle resulted in theological language where one must question how systematic it is and if it is really theistic.

Perhaps the first way to approach this issue is to examine the difference between theism and deism. In deism God creates the world but after that is no longer involved. The cosmos just takes the structure given it and does its own thing. Theism by contrast claims that God is engaged in the cosmos, typically characterized as in general and special providence. In general providence God acts universally in sustaining creation. In special providence God acts in specific events to bring about God’s will. In other words God acts specifically and intentionally. It is in this area of special providence that the challenge emerges. It is my view that theistic evolution theology either loses this sense of special providence or creates unsystematic contrivances to save it.

In trying to make Darwinian theory theistic instead of deistic, theistic evolutionists emphasize general providence. In this approach God is intimately involved (over against a deism) in the cosmos but God’s role is one of sustainer of “natural process”. The way that Arthur Peacocke puts it God acts “in, with and under” the natural processes of chance and natural selection. Another way it is put is that God sustains secondary causes which do all the work. Perhaps a metaphor might illustrate this. Within this framework God could be represented as a superintendent of a residential building. God keeps the water flowing and the heat on but does not interact personally with the tenants. Here’s a sample from A CATECHISM OF CREATION, AN EPISCOPAL UNDERSTANDING:

“Theologian Elizabeth Johnson writes that God uses random genetic

mutations to ensure variety, resilience, novelty and freedom in

the world. At the same time, the universe operates by certain

natural laws or “secondary causes” by which God, the Primary

Cause, ensures regularity and reliability in nature.”

and

“As the nineteenth-century Anglican minister Charles Kingsley put

it, God has made a world that is able to make itself.”

What we don’t see in theistic evolutionary theology is clear cut reference to a strong divine intentionality involved in evolution. Instead God’s intent is relegated to the role of sustainer of chance and necessity. Is this enough to “save” theism or is this really a neo-deism being disguised as a theistic approach? That is for theists to decide.

The other issue that arises from this view of divine activity by theistic evolutionists is what to say about the representations of God’s activity found in scripture. Scriptures of all kind talk about God acting specifically both in history and in personal lives. If God merely sustains or works only “in, with, and under” chance and necessity in evolution, how can the special acts of God found in scripture be resolved? Are they really just metaphors for the activity of secondary causes. Howard Van Till claims that God “fully gifts” nature and that no “intervention” is needed. (Of course an interventionist view is only one theological view where God can act but that is another post) Or does God act only with secondary causes in evolution but directly in other aspects of life? The systematic difficulty here is one of demarcation. Where would one draw the line? And is this just a contrivance to save both Darwinian theory and theism? Biologist and theistic evolutionist, Kenneth Miller opts for this approach where, although he is a staunch Darwinist, he also affirms miraculous events caused by God:

“The Christian God isn’t a deist one; neither is Allah, or the

God of Abraham. Any God worthy of the name has to be capable of

miracles, and each of the great Western religions attributes a

number very specific miracles to their conception of God. What

can science say about a miracle? Nothing. By definition, the

miraculous is beyond explanation, beyond our understanding,

beyond science. This does not mean that miracles do not occur.

A key doctrine in my own faith is that Jesus was born of a

virgin, even though it makes no scientific sense–there is the

matter of Jesus’s Y-chromosome to account for. But that is the

point. Miracles, by definition, do not have to make scientific

sense. They are specific acts of God, designed in most cases to

get a message across. Their very rarity is what makes them so

remarkable.” _FINDING DARWIN’S GOD, p. 230-240.

From a systematic theology point of view this is appears to be a contrivance. Consistency is the hallmark of systematic theology. Does this inconsistently survive examination? I think not.

There has been a lot written in support of theistic evolution by prominent theologians in the literature. However, the dicey issue of how to reconcile it with the rest of theology(prayer, revelation, salvation schemes, etc.) is largely ignored and probably for good reason. To do so would require stripping the veneer off of, in my opinion, very weak theological assertions. At the very least, theists should require theologians to fully treat the implications of theistic evolution. Then they can decide for themselves how theistic, theistic evolution is.

=============================

10 Comments »

1.

Since the time of Charles Darwin, the theory of evolution has changed the way we see both the world we live in and ourselves. Today evolutionary thought permeates and shapes our understanding of everything about us. Every branch of our science is based upon it. It has altered and molded the scientific worldview at all levels. While this is especially true for the biological sciences, it is not limited to them. Pierre Teilhard de Chardin said: “Blind indeed are those who do not see the sweep of a movement whose orb infinitely transcends the natural sciences and has successfully invaded and conquered the surrounding territory-chemistry, physics, sociology, and even mathematics and the history of religions. One after the other all the fields of human knowledge have been shaken and carried away by the same under-water current in the direction of some development. Is evolution a theory, a system, or a hypothesis? It is much more: it is a general condition to which all theories, all hypotheses, all systems must bow and which they must satisfy henceforward if they are to be thinkable and true. Evolution is a light illumining all facts, a curve that all lines must follow.”

Theology has been the most reluctant of the great disciplines to embrace evolution as a fundamental part of its doctrines. Organized religions have either grudgingly admitted that evolution exists and then try to ignore the implications this presents, or else they hide behind creationism, a pseudo-scientific world view which carefully chooses and interprets scientific data out of context to prove pre-conceived religious doctrines. For many religious groups today, evolution is at the least an embarrassing word if not actually a dirty one. They still believe in a transcendent God and in an instantaneous creation. They see the natural world as the deficient reflection of a perfection that exists beyond time. Evolutionary change with its process of becoming is a meaningless aberration that deviates from this fixed perfection. God is the prime mover existing outside of the universe which itself is viewed as static and materialistic. Modern science, on the other hand, accepts a typically mechanistic view of evolution. For both modern science and organized religion, evolution still lacks its own God.

As in all theories, there are extremists who seize upon them and accept them uncritically and without reservation. For some people, a type of atheistic neo-darwinianism has become a transcendent religion. Carried away by the great discoveries in evolution, they have attempted to explain all of reality by its premises. They have posited a scientific materialism that goes far beyond what science actually knows. For these true believers, the blind force of nature is not really blind at all. Natural selection becomes supernatural selection. The survival of the fittest becomes the perpetuation of the chosen. They believe that nature operates by principles that transcend the natural, though they will seldom admit it. For them, the seemingly random occurrences in nature are guided by physical principles that seem to have a supernatural ability to design and shape our universe. A mysterious force that serves the same purpose replaces God as creator. Ethical values become relative and changing as they seek to make temporary adjustments to this force in order to go along with it. People who embrace scientific materialism are the high priests of a cult that finds its deity in a new emergent principle that gives conscious life to natural forces.

While fifteen billion years may seem like a long time, our universe and the life force within it could not have spontaneously evolved as they have in that short a period of time without some kind of intelligent design and direction. It would have been a statistical impossibility. The origination of any particular protein molecule by chance, for example, is inconceivably improbable. There are twenty different amino acids. To construct a protein chain of one hundred amino acids, the number of possible combinations is enormous. If they were randomly shuffled a billion times a second, it would take many times the history of the universe to exhaust all of the combinations. Random throws of the dice will yield nothing, unless the dice are loaded. Then it becomes a question of who has loaded them. Is it a purposeful God who has loaded them or is it some emergent principle that lets specific attractive forces and combinations take precedence over blind chance?

Scientific materialists solve this problem by attributing a supernatural designing ability to the forces of nature. Atheists usually try to resolve the problem by saying that the universe and everything in it has just been here forever, despite the findings of science to the contrary. Both believe that anything can happen, if you just give it enough time. According to their premises, an orangutan dancing a soft-shoe routine upon a computer keyboard would eventually produce a perfect copy of MARY POPPINS. Two orangutans dancing a minuet upon the same keyboard would produce it in half that time. But some things never happen, no matter how long you wait. Eternity without God just sits there. Half of never is still never. When you have no place to go, you stay home.

Directive evolution is the process God is using to build the Cosmos. This process began operating at the moment of creation. It started functioning with that first elemental explosion of space/time into an ever-expanding universe. It is the method by which God is fashioning all of space-time, from the tiniest building blocks of energy to the most massive galaxies. God is operating within all of reality. This gives direction to the arrow of time.

Directive evolution is a process of cumulative change that is going someplace. Overall, it is characterized by an increasing complexity of organization. The process of directive evolution has seen the development of the Cosmos from lower to higher states of complexity, differentiation and organization. It follows immutable laws step by step. It is the logical, methodical building process of God’s stupendous intellect. As vast and great as this process is, it is a perfectly natural one. It is consistent with all of the laws of science. These laws come from God and do not have an existence separate from God. This process is never capricious, illogical or dependent upon suspending the natural order of the universe. Fundamentally, it is in accord with the second law of thermodynamics. Each succeeding step forwards is the natural outcome of what has preceded it. Tiny alterations of direction by God at the quantum level can result over time in major changes at the macro level. An immanent God working naturally within the system does not need the miracles that a transcendent God working supernaturally from the outside requires to effect changes in direction.

Evolution’s God expanded from eternity to create space-time. God is immanent in a dynamic, organic universe that is still in the process of becoming. Creation is alive and continuous. God is drawing us into the future. The Cosmos presents us with a reality which combines the past and present into an arrow pointing to the yet to be. The strong version of the anthropic principle claims that the first moments of the Big Bang demonstrated how uniquely contingent the initial conditions were that permitted a universe like ours to develop. This principle tells us that the universe must have had, unconditionally from the beginning, the properties for intelligent life. It is a theological affirmation that the universe is the work of God whose purposes included the tribe of humanity.

For scientific materialists whose philosophical outlook has been shaped by the materialistic reductionism of modern science, atheistic neo-darwinianism appears to provide a simplistic explanation for life. Their claims to have solved all of the secrets of life completely by applying the same types of causal analysis to them that are used in physics and chemistry seem very shallow when their results are studied. Whether they appeal to the algorithmic necessity of natural selection or stress the role of contingency, they raise more questions than they answer. They skirt all around the questions that matter most without ever really grappling with them in earnest. They don’t even attempt to answer why there is anything at all. They believe that everything is materialistic and can be explained by a process of epistemological reductionism. They try to break things up into tiny little pieces, thinking in this way to see what makes them what they are. But in the hierarchy of creation, higher complexities contain relationships and processes that are not found in those of lower order complexity. Evolutionary history has seen the emergence of novel forms of order and activity that could not have been predicted from previous forms. As molecules, cells and organisms appeared successively, they brought with them new properties and kinds of behavior. They cannot be reduced to smaller bits without losing vital aspects of their totality. When a living frog is dissected into fragments of bone, blood and tissue, and then sewn back up, it is immediately obvious to the dullest among us that that frog is no longer going to hop. Something has been left out.

Directive evolution is characterized by a metaphysics of the future. This is the religious belief that the past and present are way stations on a continuing journey whose destination we can only perceive dimly. Continuing creation gives us a new view of nature as a dynamic, interdependent, evolutionary process of which humanity is a fundamental part. Because it is part of the real world, the evolutionary process is not without trial and error. This is part of the learning process, for God is learning also. God has experimented many times and has tried many different things. Some of them haven’t worked out and have had to be discarded. When God goes down a blind alley, the built-in forces of natural law suggest a return to a more proven path. At each wrong turn, warning signals say ‘go back’. Design is built into the laws and processes that science describes. God has created a self-organizing system that is a multi-faceted ongoing process of chance, necessity and novelty. But God has loaded the dice. Working within the system at the tiniest level of reality, God can guide and change the process of evolution. Evolution is a vital, dynamic method for creating real things in the real world of space-time. It is always new and it never repeats itself. It is definitely going someplace. Teleology is displayed in the process as a whole, but not necessarily in the design of particular structures.

Comment by John Swanson — July 9, 2006 @ 10:03 pm

2.

Hm, my experience, limited as it is, tells me that generally speaking, attempting to reconcile darwinian theory and theism is a mistake. As a comparison, that is like trying to reconcile Christianity and Islam, while they have points of similarity, the differences are such that it can’t be done.

The points of similarity between darwininian theory and theology, or at least the main one, is faith. Science in general, it seems, and darwinian theory specifically, require a certain level of faith just as any system of theology or religion.

The reason that there is such difficulty in reconciling the two is that in theology (as my understanding of it goes) faith (belief with out proof, but not neccearilly without evidence) is an integral, organic part of the system, where as in science generally, and darwinian theory specifically, faith is denied as beleif with out proof but with evidence and instead is called random and chance and relabeled as fact.

I think where many theologians and theists get into trouble is they forget that faith is a key part of any theological system (not blind faith btw, belief without either proof or evidence) and they begin to try to make their theology or theism look more like science thus losing coherence...

thats my take on this so far

Comment by carbon14atom — July 9, 2006 @ 11:15 pm

3.

Hi carbon14atom,

"The points of similarity between darwininian theory and theology, or at least the main one, is faith. Science in general, it seems, and darwinian theory specifically, require a certain level of faith just as any system of theology or religion."

I agree. In my view religious faith can be framed as a faithing fallibilism. As you say religious beliefs may not be based on “proof” but they are also not necessarily devoid of evidence. If there is no evidence then the charge of fideism is warranted. However, there is evidence for religious belief. This is commonly called natural theology which can include scientific evidence. While a natural theology may not provide a knock-down proof neither does Darwinism. This is becoming more and more clear, especially as ID progresses.

Comment by Steve Petermann — July 9, 2006 @ 11:53 pm

4.

just re-read the article, skimmed through Mssr Swanson’s comment and re-read what I said. something I find interesting is that it is possible to look at the ‘miracle’ of the christian creation story from a scientific view point and find that it generally follows accepted scientific principles. As an example, read the order of creation for plants, it follows the well known and documented order of progression from simple to complex that plant life uses to take over bare ground and even rock. Even though I am not trying to actively promote my faith I do think it is a fascinating study of Intelligent Design, to go through and compare what is stated in various holy writings of various religious beleifs to what ID predicts...

Comment by carbon14atom — July 10, 2006 @ 6:01 am

5.

It might be worthwhile to substitute Mendelian genetics for evolutionary biology and see whether it changes the theological argument at all? It seems to me, that Mendel has the same implications for theology as Darwin.

Most Christians believe that each individual is created by God as part of the working out of God’s sovereign will. At the same time, one can study real pedigrees and show that inheritance of traits is statistically indistinguishable from the predictions made by geneticists. Furthermore, population genetics serves as a link between Mendelian genetics of individual pedigrees and the evolution of populations.

So, does Mendelian genetics lead inexorably to deism? If Christians can reconcile the apparently impersonal and mechanistic inheritance of genetic traits with special and general providence, why would evolution require additional rationalization?

Comment by Nick P. — July 10, 2006 @ 2:41 pm

6.

Hi Nick,

Welcome.

"So, does Mendelian genetics lead inexorably to deism? If Christians can reconcile the apparently impersonal and mechanistic inheritance of genetic traits with special and general providence, why would evolution require additional rationalization?"

But in my view Christians or other theists, for that matter, cannot in a good systematic sense reconcile the view that that biotic change is impersonal and mechanic with special providence. The only way to do that is adopt some form of deism w.r.t (with respect to) evolution and theist w.r.t. God’s personal activity. How would a theologian justify that sort of demarcation?

Comment by Steve Petermann — July 10, 2006 @ 3:06 pm

7.

Hi Steve,

But in my view Christians or other theists, for that matter, cannot in a good systematic sense reconcile the view that that biotic change is impersonal and mechanic with special providence.

So, given that, do you have any idea why so many trees and electrons have been consumed to debate the issue wrt evolution, but no one seems to care about genetics? The problem of reconciling special providence with an apparently impersonal scientific theory seems identical in both cases. Since genetics deals directly with who we are as individuals, it could be seen as an even more personal and intimate threat than evolution. Yet, we don’t see theological arguments against Mendel. Why?

Comment by Nick P. — July 10, 2006 @ 4:46 pm

8.

Nick,

The problem of reconciling special providence with an apparently impersonal scientific theory seems identical in both cases. Since genetics deals directly with who we are as individuals, it could be seen as an even more personal and intimate threat than evolution. Yet, we don’t see theological arguments against Mendel. Why?

I don’t think there really are many theological arguments against evolution or even population genetics, per se, except those coming from the young earth creationists. What is argued theologically is that religious insight, whether from scripture, natural theology, or personal religious experience, leads one to believe that biotic emergence in particular and reality in general have a teleological grounding. This, of course, is not a scientific argument. However, if these theological arguments have no basis in some sort of experiential evidence then they would rightly be classified as fideistic. It’s just that the sorts of evidence for special providence do not readily find a happy validation in science. Even ID, which in my view is analogically based probably will never become a “science” as it is normally understood. It is enough for many religious adherents, myself included, that there is enough “evidence” to make belief reasonable. In fact, some of the things I see emerging from cell biology absolutely scream teleology to me as a design engineer. When I read descriptions of what is happening in the cell by biologists like James Shapiro who is not an IDist, as a design engineer my mind is boggled at how all this could have come about in some undirected fashion. However, that intuition cannot rule out that some undirected mechanism will be found at some point. I just don’t think it is reasonable to expect it.

Comment by Steve Petermann — July 10, 2006 @ 5:58 pm

9.

As a theist who accepts evolution (yet flirts with OEC), I personally find no problem reconciling a God of miracles and evolution (even if entirely naturalistic).

It is critical to remember what the theological understanding of miracles is. Namely, that it is a tool of authentication that communicates God’s will. Of course, when considering creation, there was no need for miraculous intervention for the communication of God’s will, for there was no one else present. This, of course, does not mean that God could not have intervened during the evolution of Creation out of his sovereign will (is the problems involving the origin of life evidence of such?). It is, however, to say that there was lacking a critical element virtually always involved in miracles otherwise. While I don’t necessarily defend the perspectives of other theistic evolutionists, I can find no problem why God does not have the omnipotence or omniscience, to create a universe that has the intrinsic properties to bring forth specifically what He decrees without additional intervention. Furthermore, I have no problem reconciling this concept with a God who intervenes miraculously to reveal himself to mankind.

Comment by Dane Parker — July 10, 2006 @ 9:35 pm

10.

It is critical to remember what the theological understanding of miracles is. Namely, that it is a tool of authentication that communicates God’s will.

It may be true that the biblical miracles were thought of as such, but I don’t think that would fully represent religious sentiment for divine activity in general. There is much in religious sentiment that points to God’s activity within a person’s life and history in general, that is unknown. Is communication all that God’s will is about? Or is it as many theologians claim that God’s activity is the purposeful guiding of reality? This is found in all the eschatological language of scripture as well as non-traditional theologies like process theology.

The problem, as I see it, is where and why one would draw the line between “fully natural” and the “supernatural” activity. For example if God was not active in the emergence of biotic reality but is active in both physical and mental healing, as many believe, doesn’t this seem an arbitrary place to demarcate God’s activity? In the case of prayer, aren’t many people asking God for something that is not inherent in “natural processes”?

[Note: I am not arguing for supernaturalism. I merely offer the sentiments of many theistic evolutionists. That is why I put scare quotes around a lot of terms. Those need to be fleshed out in detail and will be explored in subsequent threads.]

Comment by Steve Petermann — July 10, 2006 @ 10:14 pm

The increasingly nasty debate between believers in Darwinian evolution and advocates for intelligent design theory hinges on the fact that most creationists relate to evolutionists as if they have no soul, and most evolutionists relate to the creationists as if they have no brain.

Since according to Jewish tradition we all possess both, this is where our discussion should begin -- no small feat in a culture in which the absolute obliteration of the other side’s views is often the only basis for thinking that one’s own position is correct.

Such thinking is totally inconsistent with the Jewish intellectual tradition of healthy debate, the acceptance of multiple positions on complex issues, and the awareness that even those claims judged to be incorrect still have a great deal to teach us. In fact, according to the Talmud, the views of the “losing side” in every debate are preserved precisely because they may, at some future point, be deemed to be correct. It is that intellectual modesty, sorely lacking on both sides of today’s debate, which my tradition brings to its teachings about the divisive nature of the origin of life.

Jewish tradition teaches that God is the ground of all being and the ultimate source of all life. That said, both the positions of Darwinian evolution and those of the intelligent design theorists can fit with classical Jewish thought. The argument for the former bases itself on readings of the creation stories in Genesis as being non-literal with respect to time, i.e., the seven days of creation according to many rabbinic commentaries are understood as seven eons (the word “day” being a literary conceit helping the reader to comprehend the process), developmental in roughly the ways that Darwin describes, i.e., moving from less to increasingly complex forms of life, and guided by a process that supports the expansion of life in the most efficient and successful ways.

The argument for intelligent design is also easily made by reading the Genesis story as a literal account of the initial stages of the creation of all that is. This approach is driven by an understanding of God as more intimately involved with the ongoing processes of the world and all forms of life within it, the willingness to stand awe-struck before something of seemingly incomprehensible richness and complexity, and the ability to provide answers to life’s questions that supply meaning beyond the mechanisms by which life proceeds.

How can a single religious tradition support both of these readings? It can do so in much the same way that the book of Genesis can include two distinct creation narratives. The Hebrew Bible and Jewish tradition recognize that each approach is a valid response to a different set of issues. Both evolution and intelligent design attempt to explain the origins of life and to understand how life takes new forms. But the first is primarily interested in understanding the mechanics, while the second is at least as driven by the desire to appreciate the presence of the creator of life.

That difference does not imply that one is more valid than the other, or even more accurate. It simply means that when each of them is taught, there should be full recognition of the different biases that each approach carries with it. While each of them is in fact a “theory,” the meaning of that term is not applied equally by those who use it. Intelligent design theory is simply not testable in the way in which evolution theory is. More importantly, the proponents of evolution theory would be just as happy to find out that they are wrong, as to continue believing that they are right.

Excluding those Darwinians who understand their position to be a proof against the existence of a creator -- itself a kind of fundamentalist position -- the primary interest of evolutionary biology is the deepening of our understanding of life, regardless of the theological implications. The premise of intelligent design theory is that it can provide evidence that confirms the existence of a specific kind of creator. If it failed to do so, then not only would the theory be wrong, but the proponents of it would see themselves as having failed in their pursuit of knowledge and in their attempt to confirm what they already believe.

Jewish tradition has always made room for both of these impulses, the one that seeks confirmation of the purposefulness and meaningfulness of existence, and the one that challenges our very definitions of those terms. In fact, the only unacceptable position in this debate between the intelligent design folks and proponents of Darwin is the one that insists there is no room for both of these positions in our classrooms, homes, hearts and minds.

________

Rabbi Brad Hirschfield is vice president of CLAL-The National Jewish Center for Learning and Leadership.

“In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” — Genesis 1

INTRODUCTION

Many people assume that Darwin’s theory must have shaken the foundation of the Christian faith because of the stark difference between evolution and the idea of six-day creation. In truth, the literalist six-day interpretation of GENESIS 1-2 was not the only perspective espoused by Christian thinkers prior to the publication of THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES. The works of many early Christian theologians and philosophers reveal an interpretation of Genesis compatible with Darwin’s theory.

EARLY CHRISTIAN THOUGHT

Origen, a third-century philosopher and theologian from Alexandria, Egypt — one of the great intellectual centers of the ancient world — provides an example of early Christian thought on creation.

Best known for ON FIRST PRINCIPLES and AGAINST CELSUS, Origen presents the main doctrines of Christianity and defends them against pagan accusations. ON FIRST PRINCIPLES offers the following perspective on the Genesis creation story:

“What person of intelligence, I ask, will consider as a reasonable

statement that the first and the second and the third day, in which

there are said to be both morning and evening, existed without sun and

moon and stars, while the first day was even without a heaven? [ ... ]

I do not think anyone will doubt that these are figurative expressions

which indicate certain mysteries through a semblance of history.” 1

Origen opposed the idea that the creation story should be interpreted as a literal and historical account of how God created the world.

St. Augustine of Hippo, a bishop in North Africa during the early fifth century, is another central figure of the period, Although he is widely known for CONFESSIONS, Augustine authored dozens of other works, several of which focus on GENESIS 1-2.2 In THE LITERAL MEANING OF GENESIS, Augustine argues that the first two chapters of Genesis are written to suit the understanding of the people at that time.3

“Perhaps Sacred Scripture in its customary style is speaking with the

limitations of human language in addressing men of limited

understanding. ... The narrative of the inspired writer brings the

matter down to the capacity of children.” 4

In order to communicate in a way that all people could understand, the creation story was told in a simpler, allegorical fashion. Augustine also believed God created the world with the capacity to develop — a view that is harmonious with biological evolution.5

LATER CHRISTIAN THOUGHT

There are many other non-literalist interpretations of GENESIS 1-2 later in history. St. Thomas Aquinas, a well-known 13th century philosopher and theologian, was an Italian priest who was particularly interested in the intersection of science and religion. Aquinas did not fear the possible contradiction between the Genesis creation story and scientific findings. William Carroll notes,

“Aquinas did not think that the opening of Genesis presented any

difficulties for the natural sciences, for the Bible is not a textbook

in the sciences. What is essential to Christian faith, according to

Aquinas, is the “fact of creation,” not the manner or mode of the

formation of the world.” 6

Aquinas’ interpretation of the creation story is evident in SUMMA THEOLOGICA, in which he responds to the question of whether all six days of creation are actually a description of a single day, a theory Augustine had suggested. Aquinas does not take sides in the debate, but attempts to seek harmony between the two views. Aquinas argues in favor of the view that God created all things to have potential:

“On the day on which God created the heaven and the earth, He created

also every plant of the field, not, indeed, actually, but “before it

sprung up in the earth,” that is, potentially. ... All things were not

distinguished and adorned together, not from a want of power on God’s

part, as requiring time in which to work, but that due order might be

observed in the instituting of the world. Hence it was fitting that

different days should be assigned to the different states of the world,

as each succeeding work added to the world a fresh state of perfection.” 7

Clearly, Augustine strongly influenced Aquinas.

Augustine’s creation perspective can be seen even as late as the 18th century — just before Darwin published THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES — in the works of John Wesley. An Anglican minister and early leader in the Methodist movement, Wesley, like Augustine, thought scriptures were written in terms suitable for their audience. He writes,

“The inspired penman in this history [Genesis] ... [wrote] for the Jews

first and, calculating his narratives for the infant state of the

church, describes things by their outward sensible appearances, and

leaves us, by further discoveries of the divine light, to be led into

the understanding of the mysteries couched under them.” 8

Wesley also argues the scriptures “were written not to gratify our curiosity [of the details], but to lead us to God.”9 Darwin’s theory of biological evolution would not necessarily have conflicted with the perspectives of Wesley, Augustine, Aquinas, Origen or others, but the interpretation of Genesis was only one of the issues at hand . (See QUESTION 6 about THE CHRISTIAN RESPONSE TO DARWIN.)

CONCLUSION

The history of Christian thought has not been consistently dominated by proponents of a literalist interpretation of Genesis. Although a comparable list of theologians who did believe in a six day creation could be made, the examples cited here show that many prominent Christian theologians embraced an allegorical interpretation of Genesis long before science presented evidence in its favor.10 The discoveries of modern science should not be seen as a contradiction to scripture, but as guideposts toward a proper understanding of scripture’s meaning.

Augustine offers this advice:

“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 on one side

that, if further progress in the search of truth justly undermines this

position, we too fall with it. That would be to battle not for the

teaching of Holy Scripture but for our own, wishing its teaching to

conform to ours, whereas we ought to wish ours to conform to that of

Sacred Scripture.” 11

________

NOTES

1. Origen, “Book IV, Ch. 3,” in FIRST PRINCIPLES, trans. G. Butterworth (London: SPCK, 1936), quoted in Ernest Lucas, “INTERPRETING GENESIS IN THE 21ST CENTURY,” Faraday Papers, no. 11 (2007), (accessed January 28, 2009). Also available online at “DE PRINCIPIIS (BOOK IV),” New Advent. (accessed January 28, 2009).

2. Gillian Clark, AUGUSTINE, THE CONFESSIONS, LANDMARKS OF WORLD LITERATURE (Cambridge; New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 1993).

3. Bishop of Hippo Saint Augustine, THE LITERAL MEANING OF GENESIS, ANCIENT CHRISTIAN WRITERS, no. 41 (New York, N.Y.: Newman Press, 1982).

4. Saint Bishop of Hippo Augustine, THE LITERAL MEANING OF GENESIS, ANCIENT CHRISTIAN WRITERS, no. 41 (New York, N.Y.: Newman Press, 1982).

5. For a further discussion of Augustine’s perspective on creation, see chapter six of Francis Collins, THE LANGUAGE OF GOD: A SCIENTIST PRESENTS EVIDENCE FOR BELIEF (New York: Free Press, 2006), as well as chapters eight and fifteen of Alister McGrath, A FINELY TUNED UNIVERSE: THE QUEST FOR GOD IN SCIENCE AND THEOLOGY (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2009).

6. William E. Carroll, “Aquinas and the Big Bang,” First Things 97 (1999): 18-20.

7. St. Thomas Aquinas, “Question 74: All the Seven Days in Common,” IN THE SUMMA THEOLOGICA OF ST. THOMAS AQUINAS, 2nd ed., trans. Fathers of the English Dominican Province (London: Burns Oates and Washbourne, 1920). Also available online at “Summa Theologica,” New Advent, http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1074.htm#2.

8. John Wesley, WESLEY’S NOTES ON THE BIBLE (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Francis Asbury Press, 1987), 22, quoted in Darrel R. Falk, COMING TO PEACE WITH SCIENCE: BRIDGING THE WORLDS BETWEEN FAITH AND BIOLOGY (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004), 35. Also available online at John Wesley, “John Wesley’s Notes on the Bible,” Wesley Center Online, http://wesley.nnu.edu/john_wesley/notes/index.htm (accessed January 28, 2009).

9. John Wesley, A SURVEY OF THE WISDOM OF GOD IN THE CREATION: OR, A COMPENDIUM OF NATURAL PHILOSOPHY, 3rd ed. (London: J. Fry, 1777), 2:463, quoted in Falk, COMING TO PEACE WITH SCIENCE: BRIDGING THE WORLDS BETWEEN FAITH AND BIOLOGY, 35.

10. The Catholic Church also acknowledges the diversity of early Christian interpretations of Genesis. See, for example, Catholic Answers, “Creation and Genesis,” Catholic Answers, http://www.catholic.com/library/creation_and_genesis.asp (accessed January 28, 2009).

11. Augustine, THE LITERAL MEANING OF GENESIS.

Western culture has an undeniable fascination with scientists, and with good reason. Patiently using the scientific method, they have brought us many good things, from the telephone to the airplane to antibiotics. And I don’t think it’s a coincidence that many of the world’s first scientists were Christians who were seeking to discover not whether God created, but how he created the universe. Because science is based on the premise that God created an orderly universe. And the scientific method was a Christian contribution to our civilization. But later some scientists, in their pursuit to find the Holy Grail, began to question the God hypothesis. Many today (at least the most outspoken among them) have become determined atheists, insisting that science makes the God hypothesis unnecessary.

Well for a while, Stephen Hawking, the brilliant scientist at Cambridge, was more in line with the traditional view. In his famous book, A BRIEF HISTORY OF TIME, he said, “If we discover a complete theory, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason — for then we should know the mind of God.” Unfortunately, in his new book, The Grand Design and in a companion piece in the Wall Street Journal, Hawking now says God is unnecessary after all.

Hawking and his coauthor, American physicist Leonard Mlodinow, are seeking a so-called “theory of everything” to explain life and the universe. They first address the undeniable reality that the cosmos seems incredibly fine-tuned for life. This reality, called the Anthropic Principle, has led many thinking scientists to make room in their equations for a Creator.

But not Hawking. In THE GRAND DESIGN, he takes refuge in the unproven, un-testable, and completely theoretical hypothesis that we live in one of a multitude — perhaps an infinite number — of universes, each created spontaneously, run by unplanned physical processes that in a few cases could make life possible. But is this flight of fancy called the multiverse any more scientific than the simpler and more satisfying declaration, “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth”?

Of course not! It’s based on an unscientific, unproven presupposition. But opting for atheism, Hawking still gives human beings — who are apparently alone in the multiverse — at least a fig leaf of dignity. He writes, “Although we are puny and insignificant on the scale of the cosmos, this makes us in a sense lords of creation.”

Lords of creation? Those are stirring, but meaningless words. Actually, a godless multiverse would make us the puny inhabitants of a dead creation — a creation, mind you, without a Creator!

Whether or not there’s anything to Hawking’s theory — and Christians, who believe in heaven and hell, should be the very first people to acknowledge the possibility of dimensions that we cannot see — the fact remains that the great physicist has left the world of science with a breathtaking leap of faith.

Which, after all, is easier to believe — an infinite, soulless, universe-making machine, or a loving and powerful Creator who has set in motion the awesome, just-right creation we are still only beginning to explore?

Which answer you choose is, of course, ultimately a matter not of science, but of FAITH.

________

Copyright (c) 2010 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint with Chuck Colson" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

The debate over Darwinism rages on, with almost every week bringing a new salvo in the Great Controversy. The reason for this is simple and straightforward — naturalistic evolution is the great intellectual rival to Christianity in the Western world. It is the creation myth of the secular elites and their intellectual weapon of choice in public debate.

In some sense, this has been true ever since Darwin. When Charles Darwin developed and published his theory of natural selection, the most obvious question to appear to informed minds was this: Can the theory of evolution be reconciled with the Christian faith?

The emergence of evolution as a theory of origins and the existence of life forms presented a clear challenge to the account of creation offered within the Bible, especially in the opening chapters of Genesis. At face value, these accounts seem irreconcilable.

There were a good many intrepid and honest souls in the nineteenth century who understood the reality that, if evolution is true, the Bible must be radically reinterpreted. Others went further and, like the New Atheists in our time, seized upon evolution as an intellectual weapon to be used against Christianity.

There were others who attempted to mediate between evolution and Christianity. In the most common form of the argument, they asserted that the Bible tells the story of the who and the why of creation, but not the how. The how was left to empirical science and its theory of evolution.

In more recent years, this argument has been made from the evolutionary side of the argument by the late Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard University, who proposed that the worlds of science and religious faith were completely separate, constituting “non-overlapping magisteria.” In effect, he argued that religion and science cannot conflict, since they do not address the same questions.

The problem with this argument is obvious: Darwinism and Genesis do clearly overlap. The Bible does not merely speak of the who and the why. It also makes explicit claims concerning the how. Likewise, even a cursory review of the evolutionary literature indicates that evolutionary scientists routinely make assertions concerning the who and why questions. It is just not intellectually honest to argue that evolutionary theory deals only with the mechanisms of the existence of the Cosmos and that the Bible deals only with the meaning of creation.

Another approach had been taken by some Christian theologians in the nineteenth century. In their own way, even some among the honored and orthodox “Princeton Theologians” attempted to argue that there was no necessary conflict between Genesis and Darwin. They were so convinced of the power of empirical science and of the authority of Scripture that they were absolutely sure that the progress of science would eventually prove the truthfulness of the Bible.

What these theologians did not recognize was the naturalistic bent of modern science. The framers of modern evolutionary theory did not move toward an acknowledgment of divine causality. To the contrary, Darwin’s central defenders today oppose even the idea known as “Intelligent Design.” Their worldview is that of a sterile box filled only with naturalistic precepts.

From the beginning of this conflict, there have been those who have attempted some form of accommodation with Darwinism. In its most common form, this amounts to some version of “theistic evolution” — the idea that the evolutionary process is guided by God in order to accomplish his divine purposes.

Given the stakes in this public controversy, the attractiveness of theistic evolution becomes clear. The creation of a middle ground between Christianity and evolution would resolve a great cultural and intellectual conflict. Yet, in the process of attempting to negotiate this new middle ground, it is the Bible and the entirety of Christian theology that gives way, not evolutionary theory. Theistic evolution is a biblical and theological disaster.

The mainstream doctrine of evolution held by the scientific establishment and tenaciously defended by its advocates does not even allow for the possibility of a divinely implanted meaning in the Cosmos, much less for any divine guidance of the evolutionary process. There has been an unrelenting push of evolutionary theory deeper and deeper into purely naturalistic assumptions and an ever-increasing hostility to Christian truth claims.

On the other side of the equation, the injury to Christian convictions is incalculable. At the very least, the acceptance of evolutionary theory requires that the first two chapters of Genesis be read merely as a literary rendering that offers no historical data. But, of course, the injury does not end there.

If evolution is true, then the entire narrative of the Bible has to be revised and reinterpreted. The evolutionary account is not only incompatible with any historical affirmation of Genesis, but it is also incompatible with the claim that all humanity is descended from Adam and the claim that in Adam all humanity fell into sin and guilt. The Bible’s account of the Fall and its consequences is utterly incompatible with evolutionary theory. The third chapter of Genesis is as problematic for evolutionary theory as the first two.

The naturalistic evolutionists are now pressing their case in moral as well as intellectual terms. Increasingly, they are arguing that a refusal to accept evolution represents a thought crime of sorts. They are using all the tools and arguments at their disposal to discredit any denial of evolution and to marginalize voices who question the dogma of Darwinism. They are working hard to establish unquestioned belief in evolution as the only right-minded and publicly acceptable position. They have already succeeded among the intellectual elites. Their main project now is the projection of this victory throughout popular culture.

Among the theistic evolutionists, the issues are becoming clearer almost every day that passes. Proponents of theistic evolution are now engaged in the public rejection of biblical inerrancy — with some calling the affirmation of the Bible’s inerrancy as an intellectual disaster and “intellectual cul-de-sac.” Others now openly assert that we must forfeit belief in an historical Adam, an historical Fall, and a universal Flood.

Thus, the vise of evolutionary theory is now revealing the fault lines of the current debate. There can be no question but that the authority of the Bible and the truthfulness of the Gospel are now clearly at stake. The New Testament clearly establishes the Gospel of Jesus Christ upon the foundation of the Bible’s account of creation. If there was no historical Adam and no historical Fall, the Gospel is no longer understood in biblical terms.

This is the new shape of the debate over evolution. We now face the undeniable truth that the most basic and fundamental questions of biblical authority and gospel integrity are at stake. Are you ready for this debate?

Rob Rhinehart, age 25, is Silicon Valley entrepreneur. He grew up in suburban Atlanta, with four older sisters. His father was a stockbroker at Merrill Lynch, and his mother stayed at home. His parents are both devout Christians, and, until he was eighteen, Rhinehart was, too.

The trouble started in science class, at his small high school, Whitefield Academy. Rhinehart, who built computers in his spare time, had grown interested in astrophysics. Like everything at his school, science was taught according to creationist principles, which hold that the world is less than ten thousand years old. Rhinehart decided to write his senior thesis proving creationism from a scientific point of view.

He began delving into Dawkins and Hitchens, and searching the Internet; he thought that he’d write, “‘I’ve been through this quest and found all this evidence for Christianity and now I don’t doubt anymore.’ But the opposite happened.” His paper, titled “Bad Religion,” was about “why I was no longer a Christian, why I no longer believed in God.” He got an F on it. And he was “ostracized” from the community, he says.

His parents now accept that he holds different views. “They compartmentalize,” Rhinehart said.

Not long ago a pastor friend called, asking for help. “I’m preaching through Genesis 1–11,” he said, “and I need some advice on the whole creation and evolution thing.” There was anxiety in his voice. He wasn’t sure how preaching on origins was going to go in his church setting — or whether he would even survive! Understandably so. There is hardly a more controversial subject among evangelical Christians.

Several years earlier, a rumor circulated within my congregation along the following lines: “Pastor Todd thinks we came from apes!” My congregation was, historically speaking, on the conservative side of many theological issues, this one included. In its not-too-distant past, the church had embraced six-day, young-earth creationism as its (unofficial) teaching position. Needless to say, the fact that their relatively new and fairly young pastor held to a version of evolutionary creation caused some congregational heartburn.

This tension-filled season in the life of our church provided a good occasion to engage in serious conversations about origins issues. We grappled with our doctrinal boundaries as a local church: What degree of diversity will we allow? And given our diversity, what can we still affirm together as a unifying doctrinal core?

The upshot was the development of a series of ten theses on creation and evolution that we believe (most) evangelicals can (mostly) affirm. We weren’t looking for perfect unanimity. Our ultimate goal was to maintain the “unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace” (Eph. 4:3) and to prioritize the gospel as of “first importance” (1 Cor. 15:3). It was important for us to arrive at a position on creation and evolution that was in keeping with that faithful Christian saying, “In essentials, unity; in nonessentials, liberty; in all things, charity.”

In this essay, I share our ten theses on creation and evolution — or what we call Mere Creation. This is not what young-earth creationists believe or old-earth creationists believe or advocates of intelligent design believe or evolutionary creationists or theistic evolutionists believe but what most (evangelical) Christians, at most times, have believed and should believe about creation.

1. The doctrine of creation is central to the Christian faith.

Historically speaking, evangelicals have struggled to take the doctrine of creation seriously. Our love has been soteriology and Christology, not creation. But our neglect of the doctrine of creation is not only because our attention has been elsewhere; we have sometimes downplayed the doctrine of creation for the sake of ecclesial cohesion. We’ve categorized the doctrine as a “secondary” or “tertiary” issue in an attempt to preserve church unity. Why break fellowship over an issue not directly related to the mission of the church or the salvation of souls?

One of the strengths of evangelicalism is its ability to forge common cause out of theological diversity. And yet the danger is that our toleration for doctrinal differences becomes an indifference to doctrine. Of course, some doctrines are nearer to the core or closer to the periphery than others. Angelology isn’t central. Nor are certain aspects of eschatology. But the doctrine of salvation is; so too the doctrine of God, the doctrine of the Spirit, and the doctrine of Christ.

We should add to this list the doctrine of creation for the simple reason that it addresses some of the fundamentals of our faith — the reason for and nature of the world God has made, as well as the reason for and nature of the creatures God has made, not least those creatures made in God’s image.

2. The Bible, both Old and New Testaments, is the Word of God, inspired, authoritative, and without error. Therefore whatever Scripture teaches is to be believed as God’s instruction, without denying that the human authors of Scripture communicated using the cultural conventions of their time.

I have found it helpful in origin discussions to begin with a full-throated affirmation of the inspiration, authority, and inerrancy of the Bible. This is especially true for those who are sympathetic to evolutionary creation since they are sometimes unfairly portrayed as sitting loosely to Scripture.

I’ve also found that Christians who reject an evolutionary account of origins do so not primarily because they find the science unconvincing but because they have come to the conclusion that such a view will inevitably undermine the authority of the Bible. The fear is that embracing evolution leads to compromising biblical authority.

The thrust of this thesis is that whatever the Bible teaches, God teaches. Whatever Scripture asserts (as distinct from what Scripture merely affirms) is to be believed as what God intends it to say. It’s not a viable option for those committed to the authority of Scripture to say, “I know the Bible teaches this, but I don’t believe it.”

In saying this, however, we want to avoid implying that God did an “end run” around the authors of Scripture. No amount of stress on a “high view of the Bible should cause us to inadvertently downplay the human side of the equation. As D. A. Carson nicely puts it, “The Bible is an astonishingly human document.” We also do not want to suggest that a robust view of Scripture leaves no room for the authors to communicate divine truths through the cultural conventions of their time.

When we read the Bible, then, not least when we read the creation accounts in Genesis 1–2, we want to know the author’s intention as expressed in the text written, even if this doesn’t exhaust a faithful handling of Scripture. At root, we want to know what this particular author meant to say, at this particular time, with these particular cultural conventions.

3. Genesis 1-2 is historical in nature, rich in literary artistry, and theological in purpose. These chapters should be read with the intent of discerning what God says through what the human author has said.

We move now from what Scripture is to what Scripture says. This is where all the proverbial bugs come out of the rug.

Of course, there is much to debate about how to interpret Genesis 1–2. All too often, the question is posed as an either-or. Is Genesis fact or fiction? Is it historical or theological? Does it reveal literary crafting or is it describing actual historical events?

We need a balanced approach to the question of the literary genre of Genesis 1–2. This means allowing for the fact that the text is a carefully crafted composite genre with all three elements — literary, historical, theological — present.

Clearly, the text is intended to be read as a historical account, at least at some level. This isn’t ancient mythology or folklore. More is going on. And yet a close reading of these texts reveals rich literary artistry. This isn’t the kind of “just the facts” reporting you find in a newspaper.

Yet it seems clear that the author’s aim is ultimately theological — to say something about God, the nature of the world, and the identity and destiny of human beings who are created in his image (Gen. 1:27). The point is not ultimately about supernovas or greenhouse gases or horticulture but about “God the Father Almighty, Maker of Heaven and Earth,” as the Apostle’s Creed puts it.

Of course, affirming that Genesis 1–2 is a composite genre doesn’t immediately solve issues of interpretation. Scholars will undoubtedly continue to debate the meaning of these chapters. But as we seek common ground, we should at least begin with a shared commitment to authorial intention and agreement that the genre of Genesis 1–2 is complex and arguably composite.

4. God created and sustains everything. This means that he is as much involved in natural processes as he is in supernatural events. Creation itself provides unmistakable evidence of God’s handiwork.

Any conversation about origins involves under-the-surface assumptions about who God is, what the world he has made is like, and how God interacts with this world. For instance, our view of God is often more deistic than theistic. In our secular age, even Christians are accustomed to viewing the world in mechanistic or materialistic ways — we find it quite easy to affirm that God is involved in raising someone from the dead, but we also slip into patterns of thinking that exclude God from the routine workings of nature, like the rotation of the stars, the formation of clouds, or the grass as it grows. That’s just nature doing its thing.

This implicit naturalism limits our theological imagination in unhelpful ways. We need to avoid being essentially atheistic in the way we view the “natural” world, as though God isn’t involved in all the processes scientists like to study — things like cell divisions, photosynthesis, or condensation. As Karl Barth says of God’s providential interaction with his creation, “He co-exists with it actively, in an action which never ceases and does not leave any loopholes.” Or consider Psalm 104, which celebrates God at work in virtually everything.

An upshot of this is that creation itself provides unmistakable evidence of God’s handiwork. As the psalmist declares, “The heavens are telling the glory of God” (Ps. 19:1, NRSV). Or as the apostle Paul puts it, God’s “invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made” (Rom. 1:20, ESV).

5. Adam and Eve were real persons in a real past, and the fall was a real event with real and devastating consequences for the entire human race.

This is likely to be a sticking point for some. An increasing number of evangelical evolutionary creationists are giving up belief in Adam and Eve as real persons in a real past. The genetic evidence, at least as we now understand it, makes belief in an original human pair doubtful if not impossible.

I suspect in 20 years’ time, support for Adam and Eve as real persons in a real past will be a minority view even within evangelicalism. Should this come to pass, I remain confident that the Christian faith will survive, even though this will require some reconfiguration of our deepest convictions.

That being said, I personally don’t find the genetic evidence compelling enough to jettison belief in a real Adam and Eve in a real past. I admit that the evidence is mounting and at this stage looks (to my untrained eye) impressive. But two scriptural convictions keep me tethered to the historic Christian conviction about the original human pair. The first is the testimony of Scripture, especially Adam’s presence in genealogies (Gen. 5; Luke 1) and in Paul’s Adam-Christ typology in Romans 5. Even more compelling is the idea that the Christian view of salvation appears to hinge on the doctrine of original sin and the fall as an event, which in turn requires a real person to have transgressed and thus plunged humanity into a state of sin from which it needs redemption.

It may be the case that faithful Christians will develop biblically legitimate and theologically sensible ways of explaining the gospel apart from a real Adam and Eve. But until that point, the better part of wisdom is maintaining a spirit of engaged conversation on this issue.

6. Human beings are created in the image of God and are thus unique among God’s creatures. They possess special dignity within creation.

Modern science has demonstrated that there is strong biological continuity between human beings and all other animals. Human beings, for example, share 98.5 percent of their DNA with chimpanzees. It is increasingly difficult, then, to claim that human beings are qualitatively distinct from the animal kingdom.

Indeed, it is surprising to note how much emphasis the Genesis creation account places on the continuity between human beings and other creatures. When God created human beings, he didn’t cause them to fall from the sky but formed them from the dust of the earth.

And yet Scripture clearly intends to say that something special took place on the sixth day of creation when God created human beings. The change of language is indication enough: from “Let the waters teem” (Gen. 1:20) and “Let the land produce” (Gen. 1:24) to “Let us make” (Gen. 1:26). Here the creation reaches a new stage, a high point, and God leans into the creation of humanity in a way that is distinct from what has gone before.

The Christian tradition has tended to locate this uniqueness in the doctrine of the imago Dei, or image of God. Defining precisely what this image of God entails has been vexing for theologians. But the basic point is straightforward enough — humanity is endowed by God with a special dignity. While there is continuity between humans and the rest of animal-kind, this sixth-day creation called “humankind” is unique.

7. There is no final conflict between the Bible rightly understood and the facts of science rightly understood. God’s “two books,” Scripture and nature, ultimately agree. Therefore Christians should approach the claims of contemporary science with both interest and discernment, confident that all truth is God’s truth.

Some take issue with the notion of God’s “two books,” the book of Scripture and the book of nature. But metaphor goes back at least to Augustine and can be found in esteemed places like the Belgic Confession.

The point is that these two books, Scripture and nature, ultimately agree. At times in history we have thought they disagreed or were in conflict. This is because both the book of Scripture and the book of nature require interpretation. Today we want to affirm that all truth is God’s truth — wherever you find it, whether in the Bible or in the creation.

A corollary of this is that Christians should approach the claims of contemporary science with both interest and discernment. Sadly, at least in popular imagination, Christians are known less for enthusiasm and more for their skepticism toward science. But the truth is that Christians do not need to be nervous about the findings of contemporary science — as though science might unearth a defeater to the Christian faith. It won’t. It can’t.

We may have to live with some tension between what we believe Scripture teaches and what we understand science to be saying. But Christians, rooted in the ultimate harmony of these two books, ought to cultivate a confident patience. Remember, now we see “in a mirror dimly” (see 1 Cor. 13:12, ESV). One day, all will be made clear. So we wait, in hope.

8. The Christian faith is compatible with different scientific theories of origins, from young-earth creationism to evolutionary creationism, but it is incompatible with any view that rejects God as the Creator and Sustainer of all things. Christians can (and do) differ on their assessment of the merits of various scientific theories of origins.

The Neo-Darwinian assertion of people like Richard Dawkins, that mutations are random and that evolution is therefore necessarily unguided or blind, is a metaphysical add-on to the scientific theory of evolution, not a part of the theory itself. It’s a supposition derived not from any science but from a naturalistic worldview, which regrettably is thought by many to be inseparable from the science of evolutionary biology. Christians justifiably object to evolutionary science being used as a pretense for making grand philosophical claims about the nonexistence of God or the nature of the world or what it means to be human. Furthermore, Christians are quite right to object to the science classroom being used as a pulpit for naturalism.

The idea of unguided evolution is incompatible with Christian theism. Within the biblical worldview, nothing is random. Not even a sparrow falls to the ground apart from the will of God (Matt. 10:29). If in fact God created the biological diversity we see through mutation and natural selection, then he superintended the process every single step of the way. Evolution would thus be a thoroughly directed process, the means by which God has chosen to bring about life throughout history.

Yet we must understand that the supposed conflict between Christianity and evolution is more apparent than real. The Christian faith, in principle, is not at odds with evolution as a science but with evolution as a worldview. Christians can and do assess the merits of the science of evolution differently. That’s all good and well. But the claim that evolution is by its very nature opposed to Christianity is simply overreaching — it’s not defensible philosophically or theologically.

Some Christians believe that God created the world several thousand years ago. They see this as the plain reading of Scripture and what Christians have believed for centuries. There are others who take the Bible just as seriously but see the scientific evidence a little differently and think the world is very old — several billion years. Here’s the bottom line: Christians can and do differ on their assessment of the merits of contemporary science. This is okay. What is not okay, or what is not a Christian view, is to exclude God from the process in any way. If the earth is young, then God made it young. If the earth is old, then God made it old. If human beings came from literal dust, then God did it. And if human beings share common ancestry with other species, then God did that too.

9. Christians should be well grounded in the Bible’s teaching on creation but always hold their views with humility, respecting the convictions of others and not aggressively advocating for positions on which evangelicals disagree.

As we grow in the depth of our understanding of these important issues, we should mature in our ability to engage with those who hold opposing views. It is a sign of Christian maturity to be able to live with these sorts of tensions; it is a sign of childhood or adolescence to be agitated by a less than black-and-white world.

Central to this is the Christian virtue of humility. Sometimes we will talk about “needing humility,” as though we can turn humility on like a light switch. The truth is that humility is a virtue that is only cultivated over time and with great patience and intentionality. It is also only cultivated in community, with the help and encouragement of others. This is why the apostle Paul invited Christians to work hard “to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” (Eph. 4:3, ESV).

In practice, humility and a desire to preserve ecclesial unity mean respectfully listening to the views of others. It also means not agitating for change or grandstanding with one’s own views. On a complex, sensitive, and contentious issue like origins, it is best for evangelicals of goodwill not to aggressively advocate for positions on which evangelicals disagree.

10. Everything in creation finds its source, goal, and meaning in Jesus Christ, in whom the whole of creation will one day achieve eschatological redemption and renewal. All things will be united in him, things in heaven and things on earth.

Creation ultimately exists for Christ. He is its source, its goal, its meaning. Scripture describes Jesus with these soaring words, “He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities — all things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together” (Col. 1:15–17, ESV).

As Mark Noll has argued, the person of Christ provides motives for serious learning, not least in the sciences. There is a Christological basis for our engagement with the doctrine of creation and the natural world.

More than that, we confess that Christ is also the telos of this creation. Not only its meaning but its goal — its redeemer and the source of creation’s climatic resolution. Or as Scripture so pointedly says, God’s will has been “set forth in Christ as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth” (Eph. 1:9–10, ESV).

________

Todd Wilson is the president and cofounder of the Center for Pastor Theologians. This article is adapted from his chapter, “Mere Creation,” in Creation and Doxology: The Beginning and End of God’s Good World (IVP Academic), which he co-edited with Gerald Hiestand.

One has to admire attempts by religious adherents to allow discoveries in science to effect their theological positions. Often the opposite cannot be said for scientists even though religious sentiment is grounded in intuitions about reality, and science also relies on intuitions. When it comes to evolutionary theory many religious thinkers have also tried to embrace the science and find a theological consilience with it. This has led many adherents to reject young earth creationism and the literal interpretation of scripture with regard to origins and organic change.

For many years from Darwin’s day his theory seemed to be the best explanation how species came to be. This obviously created a challenge for theists because it seemed to undercut God’s activity in the emergence of life. For many the seeming metaphysical underpinnings of Darwinian theory were applied to reality in general, calling into question special providence itself. The theological reaction to this among prominent theistic theologians resulted in attempts to “save” divine providence. In my view, theistic evolution is among these attempts. For those theologians who accepted the notion of Darwinian theory that evolutionary change is the result of chance and necessity, how can divine action which is so fundamental to theism be “saved” and do these attempts really fit systematically within a theistic framework?

If one looks at the theology of theistic evolutionists it is obvious that there is a tremendous struggle going on. How can the God of theism be seen as personally engaged in reality in general and biotic reality in particular when only chance and necessity are the causal factors? This struggle resulted in theological language where one must question how systematic it is and if it is really theistic.

Perhaps the first way to approach this issue is to examine the difference between theism and deism. In deism God creates the world but after that is no longer involved. The cosmos just takes the structure given it and does its own thing. Theism by contrast claims that God is engaged in the cosmos, typically characterized as in general and special providence. In general providence God acts universally in sustaining creation. In special providence God acts in specific events to bring about God’s will. In other words God acts specifically and intentionally. It is in this area of special providence that the challenge emerges. It is my view that theistic evolution theology either loses this sense of special providence or creates unsystematic contrivances to save it.

In trying to make Darwinian theory theistic instead of deistic, theistic evolutionists emphasize general providence. In this approach God is intimately involved (over against a deism) in the cosmos but God’s role is one of sustainer of “natural process”. The way that Arthur Peacocke puts it God acts “in, with and under” the natural processes of chance and natural selection. Another way it is put is that God sustains secondary causes which do all the work. Perhaps a metaphor might illustrate this. Within this framework God could be represented as a superintendent of a residential building. God keeps the water flowing and the heat on but does not interact personally with the tenants. Here’s a sample from A CATECHISM OF CREATION, AN EPISCOPAL UNDERSTANDING:

“Theologian Elizabeth Johnson writes that God uses random genetic

mutations to ensure variety, resilience, novelty and freedom in

the world. At the same time, the universe operates by certain

natural laws or “secondary causes” by which God, the Primary

Cause, ensures regularity and reliability in nature.”

and

“As the nineteenth-century Anglican minister Charles Kingsley put

it, God has made a world that is able to make itself.”

What we don’t see in theistic evolutionary theology is clear cut reference to a strong divine intentionality involved in evolution. Instead God’s intent is relegated to the role of sustainer of chance and necessity. Is this enough to “save” theism or is this really a neo-deism being disguised as a theistic approach? That is for theists to decide.

The other issue that arises from this view of divine activity by theistic evolutionists is what to say about the representations of God’s activity found in scripture. Scriptures of all kind talk about God acting specifically both in history and in personal lives. If God merely sustains or works only “in, with, and under” chance and necessity in evolution, how can the special acts of God found in scripture be resolved? Are they really just metaphors for the activity of secondary causes. Howard Van Till claims that God “fully gifts” nature and that no “intervention” is needed. (Of course an interventionist view is only one theological view where God can act but that is another post) Or does God act only with secondary causes in evolution but directly in other aspects of life? The systematic difficulty here is one of demarcation. Where would one draw the line? And is this just a contrivance to save both Darwinian theory and theism? Biologist and theistic evolutionist, Kenneth Miller opts for this approach where, although he is a staunch Darwinist, he also affirms miraculous events caused by God:

“The Christian God isn’t a deist one; neither is Allah, or the

God of Abraham. Any God worthy of the name has to be capable of

miracles, and each of the great Western religions attributes a

number very specific miracles to their conception of God. What

can science say about a miracle? Nothing. By definition, the

miraculous is beyond explanation, beyond our understanding,

beyond science. This does not mean that miracles do not occur.

A key doctrine in my own faith is that Jesus was born of a

virgin, even though it makes no scientific sense–there is the

matter of Jesus’s Y-chromosome to account for. But that is the

point. Miracles, by definition, do not have to make scientific

sense. They are specific acts of God, designed in most cases to

get a message across. Their very rarity is what makes them so

remarkable.” _FINDING DARWIN’S GOD, p. 230-240.

From a systematic theology point of view this is appears to be a contrivance. Consistency is the hallmark of systematic theology. Does this inconsistently survive examination? I think not.

There has been a lot written in support of theistic evolution by prominent theologians in the literature. However, the dicey issue of how to reconcile it with the rest of theology(prayer, revelation, salvation schemes, etc.) is largely ignored and probably for good reason. To do so would require stripping the veneer off of, in my opinion, very weak theological assertions. At the very least, theists should require theologians to fully treat the implications of theistic evolution. Then they can decide for themselves how theistic, theistic evolution is.

=============================

10 Comments »

1.

Since the time of Charles Darwin, the theory of evolution has changed the way we see both the world we live in and ourselves. Today evolutionary thought permeates and shapes our understanding of everything about us. Every branch of our science is based upon it. It has altered and molded the scientific worldview at all levels. While this is especially true for the biological sciences, it is not limited to them. Pierre Teilhard de Chardin said: “Blind indeed are those who do not see the sweep of a movement whose orb infinitely transcends the natural sciences and has successfully invaded and conquered the surrounding territory-chemistry, physics, sociology, and even mathematics and the history of religions. One after the other all the fields of human knowledge have been shaken and carried away by the same under-water current in the direction of some development. Is evolution a theory, a system, or a hypothesis? It is much more: it is a general condition to which all theories, all hypotheses, all systems must bow and which they must satisfy henceforward if they are to be thinkable and true. Evolution is a light illumining all facts, a curve that all lines must follow.”

Theology has been the most reluctant of the great disciplines to embrace evolution as a fundamental part of its doctrines. Organized religions have either grudgingly admitted that evolution exists and then try to ignore the implications this presents, or else they hide behind creationism, a pseudo-scientific world view which carefully chooses and interprets scientific data out of context to prove pre-conceived religious doctrines. For many religious groups today, evolution is at the least an embarrassing word if not actually a dirty one. They still believe in a transcendent God and in an instantaneous creation. They see the natural world as the deficient reflection of a perfection that exists beyond time. Evolutionary change with its process of becoming is a meaningless aberration that deviates from this fixed perfection. God is the prime mover existing outside of the universe which itself is viewed as static and materialistic. Modern science, on the other hand, accepts a typically mechanistic view of evolution. For both modern science and organized religion, evolution still lacks its own God.

As in all theories, there are extremists who seize upon them and accept them uncritically and without reservation. For some people, a type of atheistic neo-darwinianism has become a transcendent religion. Carried away by the great discoveries in evolution, they have attempted to explain all of reality by its premises. They have posited a scientific materialism that goes far beyond what science actually knows. For these true believers, the blind force of nature is not really blind at all. Natural selection becomes supernatural selection. The survival of the fittest becomes the perpetuation of the chosen. They believe that nature operates by principles that transcend the natural, though they will seldom admit it. For them, the seemingly random occurrences in nature are guided by physical principles that seem to have a supernatural ability to design and shape our universe. A mysterious force that serves the same purpose replaces God as creator. Ethical values become relative and changing as they seek to make temporary adjustments to this force in order to go along with it. People who embrace scientific materialism are the high priests of a cult that finds its deity in a new emergent principle that gives conscious life to natural forces.

While fifteen billion years may seem like a long time, our universe and the life force within it could not have spontaneously evolved as they have in that short a period of time without some kind of intelligent design and direction. It would have been a statistical impossibility. The origination of any particular protein molecule by chance, for example, is inconceivably improbable. There are twenty different amino acids. To construct a protein chain of one hundred amino acids, the number of possible combinations is enormous. If they were randomly shuffled a billion times a second, it would take many times the history of the universe to exhaust all of the combinations. Random throws of the dice will yield nothing, unless the dice are loaded. Then it becomes a question of who has loaded them. Is it a purposeful God who has loaded them or is it some emergent principle that lets specific attractive forces and combinations take precedence over blind chance?

Scientific materialists solve this problem by attributing a supernatural designing ability to the forces of nature. Atheists usually try to resolve the problem by saying that the universe and everything in it has just been here forever, despite the findings of science to the contrary. Both believe that anything can happen, if you just give it enough time. According to their premises, an orangutan dancing a soft-shoe routine upon a computer keyboard would eventually produce a perfect copy of MARY POPPINS. Two orangutans dancing a minuet upon the same keyboard would produce it in half that time. But some things never happen, no matter how long you wait. Eternity without God just sits there. Half of never is still never. When you have no place to go, you stay home.

Directive evolution is the process God is using to build the Cosmos. This process began operating at the moment of creation. It started functioning with that first elemental explosion of space/time into an ever-expanding universe. It is the method by which God is fashioning all of space-time, from the tiniest building blocks of energy to the most massive galaxies. God is operating within all of reality. This gives direction to the arrow of time.

Directive evolution is a process of cumulative change that is going someplace. Overall, it is characterized by an increasing complexity of organization. The process of directive evolution has seen the development of the Cosmos from lower to higher states of complexity, differentiation and organization. It follows immutable laws step by step. It is the logical, methodical building process of God’s stupendous intellect. As vast and great as this process is, it is a perfectly natural one. It is consistent with all of the laws of science. These laws come from God and do not have an existence separate from God. This process is never capricious, illogical or dependent upon suspending the natural order of the universe. Fundamentally, it is in accord with the second law of thermodynamics. Each succeeding step forwards is the natural outcome of what has preceded it. Tiny alterations of direction by God at the quantum level can result over time in major changes at the macro level. An immanent God working naturally within the system does not need the miracles that a transcendent God working supernaturally from the outside requires to effect changes in direction.

Evolution’s God expanded from eternity to create space-time. God is immanent in a dynamic, organic universe that is still in the process of becoming. Creation is alive and continuous. God is drawing us into the future. The Cosmos presents us with a reality which combines the past and present into an arrow pointing to the yet to be. The strong version of the anthropic principle claims that the first moments of the Big Bang demonstrated how uniquely contingent the initial conditions were that permitted a universe like ours to develop. This principle tells us that the universe must have had, unconditionally from the beginning, the properties for intelligent life. It is a theological affirmation that the universe is the work of God whose purposes included the tribe of humanity.

For scientific materialists whose philosophical outlook has been shaped by the materialistic reductionism of modern science, atheistic neo-darwinianism appears to provide a simplistic explanation for life. Their claims to have solved all of the secrets of life completely by applying the same types of causal analysis to them that are used in physics and chemistry seem very shallow when their results are studied. Whether they appeal to the algorithmic necessity of natural selection or stress the role of contingency, they raise more questions than they answer. They skirt all around the questions that matter most without ever really grappling with them in earnest. They don’t even attempt to answer why there is anything at all. They believe that everything is materialistic and can be explained by a process of epistemological reductionism. They try to break things up into tiny little pieces, thinking in this way to see what makes them what they are. But in the hierarchy of creation, higher complexities contain relationships and processes that are not found in those of lower order complexity. Evolutionary history has seen the emergence of novel forms of order and activity that could not have been predicted from previous forms. As molecules, cells and organisms appeared successively, they brought with them new properties and kinds of behavior. They cannot be reduced to smaller bits without losing vital aspects of their totality. When a living frog is dissected into fragments of bone, blood and tissue, and then sewn back up, it is immediately obvious to the dullest among us that that frog is no longer going to hop. Something has been left out.

Directive evolution is characterized by a metaphysics of the future. This is the religious belief that the past and present are way stations on a continuing journey whose destination we can only perceive dimly. Continuing creation gives us a new view of nature as a dynamic, interdependent, evolutionary process of which humanity is a fundamental part. Because it is part of the real world, the evolutionary process is not without trial and error. This is part of the learning process, for God is learning also. God has experimented many times and has tried many different things. Some of them haven’t worked out and have had to be discarded. When God goes down a blind alley, the built-in forces of natural law suggest a return to a more proven path. At each wrong turn, warning signals say ‘go back’. Design is built into the laws and processes that science describes. God has created a self-organizing system that is a multi-faceted ongoing process of chance, necessity and novelty. But God has loaded the dice. Working within the system at the tiniest level of reality, God can guide and change the process of evolution. Evolution is a vital, dynamic method for creating real things in the real world of space-time. It is always new and it never repeats itself. It is definitely going someplace. Teleology is displayed in the process as a whole, but not necessarily in the design of particular structures.

Comment by John Swanson — July 9, 2006 @ 10:03 pm

2.

Hm, my experience, limited as it is, tells me that generally speaking, attempting to reconcile darwinian theory and theism is a mistake. As a comparison, that is like trying to reconcile Christianity and Islam, while they have points of similarity, the differences are such that it can’t be done.

The points of similarity between darwininian theory and theology, or at least the main one, is faith. Science in general, it seems, and darwinian theory specifically, require a certain level of faith just as any system of theology or religion.

The reason that there is such difficulty in reconciling the two is that in theology (as my understanding of it goes) faith (belief with out proof, but not neccearilly without evidence) is an integral, organic part of the system, where as in science generally, and darwinian theory specifically, faith is denied as beleif with out proof but with evidence and instead is called random and chance and relabeled as fact.

I think where many theologians and theists get into trouble is they forget that faith is a key part of any theological system (not blind faith btw, belief without either proof or evidence) and they begin to try to make their theology or theism look more like science thus losing coherence...

thats my take on this so far

Comment by carbon14atom — July 9, 2006 @ 11:15 pm

3.

Hi carbon14atom,

"The points of similarity between darwininian theory and theology, or at least the main one, is faith. Science in general, it seems, and darwinian theory specifically, require a certain level of faith just as any system of theology or religion."

I agree. In my view religious faith can be framed as a faithing fallibilism. As you say religious beliefs may not be based on “proof” but they are also not necessarily devoid of evidence. If there is no evidence then the charge of fideism is warranted. However, there is evidence for religious belief. This is commonly called natural theology which can include scientific evidence. While a natural theology may not provide a knock-down proof neither does Darwinism. This is becoming more and more clear, especially as ID progresses.

Comment by Steve Petermann — July 9, 2006 @ 11:53 pm

4.

just re-read the article, skimmed through Mssr Swanson’s comment and re-read what I said. something I find interesting is that it is possible to look at the ‘miracle’ of the christian creation story from a scientific view point and find that it generally follows accepted scientific principles. As an example, read the order of creation for plants, it follows the well known and documented order of progression from simple to complex that plant life uses to take over bare ground and even rock. Even though I am not trying to actively promote my faith I do think it is a fascinating study of Intelligent Design, to go through and compare what is stated in various holy writings of various religious beleifs to what ID predicts...

Comment by carbon14atom — July 10, 2006 @ 6:01 am

5.

It might be worthwhile to substitute Mendelian genetics for evolutionary biology and see whether it changes the theological argument at all? It seems to me, that Mendel has the same implications for theology as Darwin.

Most Christians believe that each individual is created by God as part of the working out of God’s sovereign will. At the same time, one can study real pedigrees and show that inheritance of traits is statistically indistinguishable from the predictions made by geneticists. Furthermore, population genetics serves as a link between Mendelian genetics of individual pedigrees and the evolution of populations.

So, does Mendelian genetics lead inexorably to deism? If Christians can reconcile the apparently impersonal and mechanistic inheritance of genetic traits with special and general providence, why would evolution require additional rationalization?

Comment by Nick P. — July 10, 2006 @ 2:41 pm

6.

Hi Nick,

Welcome.

"So, does Mendelian genetics lead inexorably to deism? If Christians can reconcile the apparently impersonal and mechanistic inheritance of genetic traits with special and general providence, why would evolution require additional rationalization?"

But in my view Christians or other theists, for that matter, cannot in a good systematic sense reconcile the view that that biotic change is impersonal and mechanic with special providence. The only way to do that is adopt some form of deism w.r.t (with respect to) evolution and theist w.r.t. God’s personal activity. How would a theologian justify that sort of demarcation?

Comment by Steve Petermann — July 10, 2006 @ 3:06 pm

7.

Hi Steve,

But in my view Christians or other theists, for that matter, cannot in a good systematic sense reconcile the view that that biotic change is impersonal and mechanic with special providence.

So, given that, do you have any idea why so many trees and electrons have been consumed to debate the issue wrt evolution, but no one seems to care about genetics? The problem of reconciling special providence with an apparently impersonal scientific theory seems identical in both cases. Since genetics deals directly with who we are as individuals, it could be seen as an even more personal and intimate threat than evolution. Yet, we don’t see theological arguments against Mendel. Why?

Comment by Nick P. — July 10, 2006 @ 4:46 pm

8.

Nick,

The problem of reconciling special providence with an apparently impersonal scientific theory seems identical in both cases. Since genetics deals directly with who we are as individuals, it could be seen as an even more personal and intimate threat than evolution. Yet, we don’t see theological arguments against Mendel. Why?

I don’t think there really are many theological arguments against evolution or even population genetics, per se, except those coming from the young earth creationists. What is argued theologically is that religious insight, whether from scripture, natural theology, or personal religious experience, leads one to believe that biotic emergence in particular and reality in general have a teleological grounding. This, of course, is not a scientific argument. However, if these theological arguments have no basis in some sort of experiential evidence then they would rightly be classified as fideistic. It’s just that the sorts of evidence for special providence do not readily find a happy validation in science. Even ID, which in my view is analogically based probably will never become a “science” as it is normally understood. It is enough for many religious adherents, myself included, that there is enough “evidence” to make belief reasonable. In fact, some of the things I see emerging from cell biology absolutely scream teleology to me as a design engineer. When I read descriptions of what is happening in the cell by biologists like James Shapiro who is not an IDist, as a design engineer my mind is boggled at how all this could have come about in some undirected fashion. However, that intuition cannot rule out that some undirected mechanism will be found at some point. I just don’t think it is reasonable to expect it.

Comment by Steve Petermann — July 10, 2006 @ 5:58 pm

9.

As a theist who accepts evolution (yet flirts with OEC), I personally find no problem reconciling a God of miracles and evolution (even if entirely naturalistic).

It is critical to remember what the theological understanding of miracles is. Namely, that it is a tool of authentication that communicates God’s will. Of course, when considering creation, there was no need for miraculous intervention for the communication of God’s will, for there was no one else present. This, of course, does not mean that God could not have intervened during the evolution of Creation out of his sovereign will (is the problems involving the origin of life evidence of such?). It is, however, to say that there was lacking a critical element virtually always involved in miracles otherwise. While I don’t necessarily defend the perspectives of other theistic evolutionists, I can find no problem why God does not have the omnipotence or omniscience, to create a universe that has the intrinsic properties to bring forth specifically what He decrees without additional intervention. Furthermore, I have no problem reconciling this concept with a God who intervenes miraculously to reveal himself to mankind.

Comment by Dane Parker — July 10, 2006 @ 9:35 pm

10.

It is critical to remember what the theological understanding of miracles is. Namely, that it is a tool of authentication that communicates God’s will.

It may be true that the biblical miracles were thought of as such, but I don’t think that would fully represent religious sentiment for divine activity in general. There is much in religious sentiment that points to God’s activity within a person’s life and history in general, that is unknown. Is communication all that God’s will is about? Or is it as many theologians claim that God’s activity is the purposeful guiding of reality? This is found in all the eschatological language of scripture as well as non-traditional theologies like process theology.

The problem, as I see it, is where and why one would draw the line between “fully natural” and the “supernatural” activity. For example if God was not active in the emergence of biotic reality but is active in both physical and mental healing, as many believe, doesn’t this seem an arbitrary place to demarcate God’s activity? In the case of prayer, aren’t many people asking God for something that is not inherent in “natural processes”?

[Note: I am not arguing for supernaturalism. I merely offer the sentiments of many theistic evolutionists. That is why I put scare quotes around a lot of terms. Those need to be fleshed out in detail and will be explored in subsequent threads.]

Comment by Steve Petermann — July 10, 2006 @ 10:14 pm

Religion in America is on the defensive.

Atheist books such as The God Delusion and The End of Faith have, by exposing the dangers of faith and the lack of evidence for the God of Abraham, become best-sellers. Science nibbles at religion from the other end, relentlessly consuming divine explanations and replacing them with material ones. Evolution took a huge bite a while back, and recent work on the brain has shown no evidence for souls, spirits, or any part of our personality or behavior distinct from the lump of jelly in our head. We now know that the universe did not require a creator. Science is even studying the origin of morality. So religious claims retreat into the ever-shrinking gaps not yet filled by science. And, although to be an atheist in America is still to be an outcast, America’s fastest-growing brand of belief is non-belief.

But faith will not go gentle. For each book by a “New Atheist,” there are many others attacking the “movement” and demonizing atheists as arrogant, theologically ignorant, and strident. The biggest area of religious push-back involves science. Rather than being enemies, or even competitors, the argument goes, science and religion are completely compatible friends, each devoted to finding its own species of truth while yearning for a mutually improving dialogue.

As a scientist and a former believer, I see this as bunk. Science and faith are fundamentally incompatible, and for precisely the same reason that irrationality and rationality are incompatible. They are different forms of inquiry, with only one, science, equipped to find real truth. And while they may have a dialogue, it’s not a constructive one. Science helps religion only by disproving its claims, while religion has nothing to add to science.

Irreconcilable

“But surely,” you might argue, “science and religion must be compatible. After all, some scientists are religious.” One is Francis Collins, head of the National Institutes of Health and an evangelical Christian. But the existence of religious scientists, or religious people who accept science, doesn’t prove that the two areas are compatible. It shows only that people can hold two conflicting notions in their heads at the same time. If that meant compatibility, we could make a good case, based on the commonness of marital infidelity, that monogamy and adultery are perfectly compatible. No, the incompatibility between science and faith is more fundamental: Their ways of understanding the universe are irreconcilable.

Science operates by using evidence and reason. Doubt is prized, authority rejected. No finding is deemed “true” — a notion that’s always provisional — unless it’s repeated and verified by others. We scientists are always asking ourselves, “How can I find out whether I’m wrong?” I can think of dozens of potential observations, for instance — one is a billion-year-old ape fossil — that would convince me that evolution didn’t happen.

Physicist Richard Feynman observed that the methods of science help us distinguish real truth from what we only want to be true: “The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool.”

Science can, of course, be wrong. Continental drift, for example, was laughed off for years. But in the end the method is justified by its success. Without science, we’d all live short, miserable and disease-ridden lives, without the amenities of medicine or technology. As Stephen Hawking proclaimed, science wins because it works.

Does religion work? It brings some of us solace, impels some to do good (and others to fly planes into buildings), and buttresses the same moral truths embraced by atheists, but does it help us better understand our world or our universe? Hardly. Note that almost all religions make specific claims about the world involving matters such as the existence of miracles, answered prayers wonder-working saints and divine cures, virgin births, annunciations and resurrections. These factual claims, whose truth is a bedrock of belief, bring religion within the realm of scientific study. But rather than relying on reason and evidence to support them, faith relies on revelation, dogma and authority. Hebrews 11:1 states, with complete accuracy, “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.” Indeed, a doubting-Thomas demand for evidence is often considered rude.

And this leads to the biggest problem with religious “truth”: There’s no way of knowing whether it’s true. I’ve never met a Christian, for instance, who has been able to tell me what observations about the universe would make him abandon his beliefs in God and Jesus. (I would have thought that the Holocaust could do it, but apparently not.) There is no horror, no amount of evil in the world, that a true believer can’t rationalize as consistent with a loving God. It’s the ultimate way of fooling yourself. But how can you be sure you’re right if you can’t tell whether you’re wrong?

The religious approach to understanding inevitably results in different faiths holding incompatible “truths” about the world. Many Christians believe that if you don’t accept Jesus as savior, you’ll burn in hell for eternity. Muslims hold the exact opposite: Those who see Jesus as God’s son are the ones who will roast. Jews see Jesus as a prophet, but not the messiah. Which belief, if any, is right? Because there’s no way to decide, religions have duked it out for centuries, spawning humanity’s miserable history of religious warfare and persecution.

In contrast, scientists don’t kill each other over matters such as continental drift. We have better ways to settle our differences. There is no Catholic science, no Hindu science, no Muslim science — just science, a multicultural search for truth. The difference between science and faith, then, can be summed up simply: In religion faith is a virtue; in science it’s a vice.

But don’t just take my word for the incompatibility of science and faith — it’s amply demonstrated by the high rate of atheism among scientists. While only 6% of Americans are atheists or agnostics, the figure for American scientists is 64%, according to Rice professor Elaine Howard Ecklund’s book, Science vs. Religion. Further proof: Among countries of the world, there is a strong negative relationship between their religiosity and their acceptance of evolution. Countries like Denmark and Sweden, with low belief in God, have high acceptance of evolution, while religious countries are evolution-intolerant. Out of 34 countries surveyed in a study published in Science magazine, the U.S., among the most religious, is at the bottom in accepting Darwinism: We’re No. 33, with only Turkey below us. Finally, in a 2006 Time poll a staggering 64% of Americans declared that if science disproved one of their religious beliefs, they’d reject that science in favor of their faith.

‘Venerable superstition’

In the end, science is no more compatible with religion than with other superstitions, such as leprechauns. Yet we don’t talk about reconciling science with leprechauns. We worry about religion simply because it’s the most venerable superstition — and the most politically and financially powerful.

Why does this matter? Because pretending that faith and science are equally valid ways of finding truth not only weakens our concept of truth, it also gives religion an undeserved authority that does the world no good. For it is faith’s certainty that it has a grasp on truth, combined with its inability to actually find it, that produces things such as the oppression of women and gays, opposition to stem cell research and euthanasia, attacks on science, denial of contraception for birth control and AIDS prevention, sexual repression, and of course all those wars, suicide bombings and religious persecutions.

And any progress — not just scientific progress — is easier when we’re not yoked to religious dogma. Of course, using reason and evidence won’t magically make us all agree, but how much clearer our spectacles would be without the fog of superstition!

________

Jerry A. Coyne is a professor in the Department of Ecology and Evolution at The University of Chicago. His latest book is Why Evolution is True, and his website is www.whyevolutionistrue.com.

I’m not a scientist, and I don’t play one on TV. But I can examine scientific evidence and ask the question, “How is life possible?” Stay tuned.

This past Christmas, the Wall Street Journal ran an essay of mine entitled “Science Increasingly Makes the Case for God.” The content will be familiar to those who have read my latest book, “Miracles,” or heard me talk about it here at BreakPoint.

I noted that the initial euphoria over the possibility that there were a septillion -- that’s one followed by 24 zeros -- planets capable of supporting life in the universe was followed by the sober fact that such planets, never mind evidence of extraterrestrial life, are exceedingly rare.

That’s because science has learned just how “fine-tuned” the universe has to be in order to support life of any kind, never mind intelligent life.

As I wrote in the Journal, “Today there are more than 200 known parameters necessary for a planet to support life — every single one of which must be perfectly met,” or our existence would be utterly impossible.

Yet, not only do we exist, we’re discussing the fact that we exist, which prompted me to ask, “What can account for” all of this? and “Doesn’t assuming that an intelligence created these perfect conditions actually require far less faith than believing that a life-sustaining Earth just happened to beat the inconceivable odds to come into being?”

Well, the response to the column was overwhelming. The piece really went viral and garnered more “likes” on Facebook than any article the Wall Street Journal has ever published -- over 350,000 as I read this now! I find that amazing and more than a little humbling.

Not surprisingly, the piece had plenty of critics. One scientist wrote to the Journal complaining about “religious arguments for the existence of God thinly veiled as scientific arguments” and “allowing a Christian apologist to masquerade as a scientist.”

This objection, which I’m told figured prominently in the comments section at the Journal, essentially amounts to saying that only scientists should be allowed to talk about the religious implications of scientific things. Scientists, it seems, can dabble as metaphysicians, philosophers, and theologians, but not vice-versa.

This is the foregone conclusion even when the person of faith is merely citing scientific findings, as I did. However, this objection is not rooted in science but in scientism, which holds that “empirical science constitutes the most authoritative worldview or most valuable part of human learning to the exclusion of other viewpoints.”

The criticism wasn’t limited to comments from atheistic scientists. Several religious believers, including those whose work I respect, took me to task for saying that science can “prove” the existence of God, much less the God of the Bible. As one Christian philosopher put it, a god whose existence can be proved scientifically isn’t God.

That is true, which is why I’m happy that I never said anything resembling that. What I did was point to the sheer improbability of our existence and ask whether it might not be reasonable to infer, like Fred Hoyle, who coined the phrase “Big Bang,” whether the universe might be, as he put it, a “put up job.”

The scientific findings I cited aren’t “proof” that compel belief in God’s existence but “signs” pointing to that possibility and inviting you to follow them to see where they might lead.

In the end, belief in God, especially the biblical God, is an act of faith. But so too is believing that our existence is simply the result of chance. Like it or not.