Board index ‹ Creation and Evolution

[Newbie]

I want to know what do you think about evolution and Christianity being compatible and what options does a Christian have?

[jimwalton]

Great question. It’s hard to know where to begin, whether with definitions or the Bible. I’ll say right away that the Bible is not hostile to free inquiry or to scientific progress. The Scriptures encourage us to dig for truth.

So saying, let’s start with definitions: “Evolution” can mean different things:

1. The process of change
2. The development of species to their present state, through minor and major changes.
3. Evolutionism: a faith philosophy based on thoughts that nature and matter are all that exists, and everything that exists is the result of impersonal forces plus time plus chance.

Next we’ll take a walk over to what the Bible tells us about origins. First of all, it says that God is the creator (Gn. 1.1; Neh. 9.6; Isa. 42.5, and plenty of others.) So right away we can tell that the Bible is at odds with evolutionism, the faith philosophy that says there is no God and matter is all there is. We know a few other things in addition to that. Heb. 11.3 & Jn. 1.3 let us know that matter is not eternal, another strike against evolutionism as a philosophy. The Bible teaches that matter is not eternal and that God created ex nihilo—out of nothing.

After that, though, the Bible doesn’t say much. There are verses that tell us that all things (inclusive) were made by God (Jn. 1.3), but we are never clued in as to the process or duration. The six days of Genesis 6 have been shown to be the language of temple dedication ceremonies and are not to be taken as the duration of time God used to create the cosmos and all that is in it.

Accurate studies of the Genesis text reveal to us that it’s really not about things anyway, but about purposes. Function, not structure. Genesis 1 tells us why things are there (purpose and role: what science cannot tell us), not about what is there (what science does tell us). There’s no conflict.

The Bible tells us that God is the source, but it tells us little else. Its concern is actually quite different than the stuff of the universe. Genesis 1 as a whole is intended to show that the miserable condition of humanity that motivates the covenant with Abraham in chapter 12 is not the result of some defect on God’s part. On the contrary, God made everything just right and set it up to function properly within his purposes.

With that presupposition, then, pretty much everything else is up to accurate scientific study. Galileo said it well: “The Bible tells us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go.” So, legitimately, science can’t really contradict the Bible, because the Bible doesn’t tell us “how the heavens go.” The only thing that contradicts the Bible is the philosophy that says there is no God, and nature and matter are all that exist.

Beyond that, I would say this: I believe in good science, and I believe in good theology. Scientists are working hard to learn how the world works, and their knowledge is extremely useful in helping us understand creation. My problem, though, is that many scientists have a bias about evolutionary theory, and so ideas that support certain perspectives are emphasized, while articles revealing flaws in the theory or conflicting perspectives are suppressed. (See the movie “Expelled” by Ben Stein.) Thanks to Christian scientists we get a glimpse of the total picture, but Christian scientists have their own biases sometimes. What we need is accurately, objective, and truthful science: the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. If we could just get that, I am confident we would find no disagreement with anything in Scripture.

On the other hand, we also need accurate, objective, and truthful theology. I believe that the teachings of Genesis 1 & 2 got skewed by the Enlightenment and the Age of Reason, and only now are scholars (such as John Walton) getting back to the truth of the creation account.

You wanted to know what options a Christian has. Well, I’m not comfortable with boxes and labels to try to hem in Biblical ideas, as if a cute little title expresses all of what I think. The Bible certainly allows for the process of change and the development of species. Science overreaches itself when it tries to extrapolate about macro-evolution between species. We just need accurate, objective, truthful science.

Can evolution and God work hand in hand? Of course they can, but that’s not to say they did. God is involved in this world in many hidden ways (just read the book of Esther, or even the first four chapters of 2 Samuel about David’s ascent to the throne). God is also involved in direct ways (the Incarnation is of course a wonderful example). Sometimes it’s hard to see His hand. Christians are too quick to blurt out “God did this!” when it could easily be a case of seeing what they want to see. We must observe and interpret with discernment. The Bible doesn’t really tell us how these things came to be, and science isn’t doing a very good job either. More research and honesty is needed.

I will say this, though: The Bible and science don’t contradict each other, and don’t have to be afraid of each other. Truth can always stand next to truth without fear. What science gives us as truth coincides perfectly with what the Bible teaches as truth. The only problems come when there is slanted, incomplete, or faulty science, and/or biased or incorrect Bible teaching.

I'd be glad to hear your response, or even further questions. Feel free.

[Skeptic]

The Bible and Science stand in absolute contradiction.

For two thousand years, the ordinary plain text interpretation of the Genesis creation and Noah's was taught by Christians as absolute truth. A seven day creation; the earth is pretty much the center of the universe; Noah's flood was universal; humankind started about 5,000 years ago, near the present day middle east.

Only when Science figured out that plain text interpretation was silly did the idea that it might be "poetic" or "subject to cultural interpretation" come to be promoted by Christians seeking to rescue the Bible from becoming just another folktale.

Of course evolution is the correct explanation of how life came become so complex over hundreds of millions of years. It accounts for the timelines of all the millions of organisms that exist today and have existed in the past, and it's written in the rocks. We are rapidly approaching the day when folks who reject the basic evolutionary explanation of simple organisms becoming more complex ones will be seen to be as quaint as flat-earthers.

Anatomically modern humans have been around for about 200,000 years, after a few million more years of hominid evolution. The change to our present day state has been gradual and not abrupt. We started in Africa and slowly emigrated throughout the world, beginning about 70,000 years ago. The evidence for all of this is in every genome of every human alive today.

Any effort to reconcile theology and science is going to have to explain what the theology is for all the hominins.

I encourage anyone defending Biblical accounts to become reasonably facile with basic geology, astronomy and evolutionary principles before mounting a vigorous defense.

[jimwalton]

Great question and great comments.

You started off with "For two thousand years, the ordinary plain text interpretation of the Genesis creation and Noah's was taught by Christians as absolute truth. A seven day creation; the earth is pretty much the center of the universe; Noah's flood was universal; humankind started about 5,000 years ago, near the present day middle east." I just want to correct your misunderstandings. Clement of Alexandria and Origen interpreted Gn. 1 allegorically (as a symbol). Augustine didn't interpret Genesis 1 as literal 7 days, and said the account should not be taken literally (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustine#Creation). The Catholic Church historically believed in creation as a process, and when Darwin published his "On the Origin of the Species," the church affirmed evolution as being compatible with Genesis 1 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_C ... _evolution). It has only been in the past few centuries (The Age of Enlightenment) that some or most Protestant churches took the stance of a literal 7 days. Recently scholars are recognizing the error of that perspective and looking again at Genesis through ancient eyes. I consider it to be rational and a strength to recognize when one is traveling down the wrong road, and to set one's course for a more accurate interpretation. Scientists do it all the time; theologians should be allowed the same course in the pursuit of truth. Archaeology in the past 100 years has brought a world of new information to light, and I, for one, am glad to see Bible scholars responding do it rather than entrenching in beliefs that are increasingly obviously false.

You chide Christian scholars for reacting only when science bombarded culture with knowledge of what really happened. As you know, change in some institutions and disciplines comes with difficulty, and not at all smoothly. The church is infamous for having difficulty with change, but it is happening, and I consider it a good thing. I agree wholeheartedly with you that we are rapidly approaching the day, if we are not there already, when the rejection of evolution will be a thing of the past.

There is no need for anyone defending Biblical accounts to have to desert the text to concur and coexist with geology, astronomy, and evolutionary principles. No defense is necessary. You have erected a false enemy to slay. People are totally mistaken if they think evolutionary theory is incompatible with theistic or Christian belief. The Bible never argues that the earth is only 6,000 years old. A misunderstanding of the genealogies of Gn. 5 led to that misunderstanding, and it's not necessary to interpret the Bible that way. Again referring to Augustine: he didn't believe the world was young. The Bible doesn't require it. The Bible teaches no objection to the claim that life could have progressed from relatively simple to relatively complex forms. The Bible teaches no objection to the idea that the diversity of life has come about by way of offspring differentiation. It also has no problem with the idea that life originated at one place on the earth, and from that all subsequent life has come. The Bible has no inherent qualms about about Darwinism and a naturalistic mechanism driving adaptation and genetic mutation. The only part the Bible would argue against is the idea of scientific materialism—that there is no God, and all there is is matter.

Darwinian evolution talks about mechanisms, selection, and mutations. None of these are contrary to the Scripture or theism. The only mechanism it speculates is random chance. But since the mechanism is unknown by science, then the field of possibilities is open, and just possibly God (as a theist would claim) is that mechanism. Evolutionary science says there is a biological and chemical history to life as we know it, that there is good evidence for the progressions we have seen, and that we know how some of the transitions occurred. There is nothing inherent in those statements to suggest how the process transpired. Neither does the Bible suggest how the process transpired; only that God was part of it. Still no inherent conflict, and no particular further reconciliation necessary. Is it possible, naturally speaking, that unguided natural selection generated what we see today? Of course it's possible. Is it also possible that the process was guided? Of course it is. You may think that the latter view is astronomically improbable, but you've probably seen statistics about the first option also, so we can't go with the argument of "astronomically improbable." There is no reason whatever to think that current biological science is in conflict with Christian belief.

As far as Noah's flood, I don't believe it was universal. You can read my articles on this website about that to get my writing on it. It certainly does not necessitate a conflict with known science.

You seem to be battling the enemy of extremely conservative fundamental Christianity. Please (1) don't put most believers (theists) in that category, and (2) don't think that the Bible HAS to be interpreted that way. It most certainly does not.

I would be pleased to discuss this further with you, getting down to whatever specifics you wish, but hopefully with these clarifications our discussion can be on more established understandings of Scripture and science. As I've said in other places, I believe in good science and I believe in good theology, and all of my understandings of the two see no contradictions and no conflict.