Evolution, A Much Misunderstood Word.
Hello, it's certainly been quite some time before we last posted. Our apologies, as we both had numerous accelerating issues in our personal lives (i.e. Children) that rightly demanded out time and attention. But now, it is our hope that we will be able to get rolling again, and that more thoughtful and weighy posts will be forthcoming.
There has, over the past several years, been no end of disputed between those who believe in the special creation of the world (particularly those who would locate it temporally at around 4000-6000 BC), and those who believe that the world was formed over billions of years in a continuous process that many call evolution. While, as always, time and space constrain what I am able to speak of here, my goal as a scientist, a physician, and an evangelical Christian, is to clarify exactly what evolution can and cannot mean. This is not trivial, for whenever I discuss this issue with other believers, I am continually struck with the great variety of meaning that the word can contain. This is made even more an issue by the fact that some of those meaning are incompatible with Christian Belief, indeed with Theism in general, but the bulk are not.
That last sentence was a fairly big statement, and I'm sure there is a bevy of individuals out there who would accuse me of heresy. Let me say first then that as I go about defining this term, I am taking as my statement of faith regarding origins the first sentences of the Nicene Creed. I use this because i believe that the creed is Biblical, accurate, and a touchstone for Christians of all denominations.
We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is, seen and unseen.
This is what I intend to use as the basic core belief of the Christian faith regarding creation. Of course one can speak of compatibility with the Genesis text, but I do not have time to address this today (I may later) Suffice it to say that, as far as I am concerned, there are many valid interpretations of what Genesis 1 is intending to convey (Day-Age, Young Earth, Framework hypothesis, Days or Proclamation, etc). But most of us are familiar with at least some of these. Where the unfamiliarity lies in the evangelical worls is with what evolution really means.
In fact, evolution means many different things to many different people. It can mean the process known as Microevolution, whereby species and populations of animals alter there genetic makeup over time as a response to a changing environment. Most everyone believes this, Christian and Non-Christian alike, and so I will not address it today. This is not under dispute. We now get into more murky territory, however.
The next definition I would propose is the far extreme, the concept that man, the animals, indeed the cosmos itself, developed from simple origins by a process of goal-less natural selection operating on essentially random materials. This is the Darwinian thesis taken to an incredible extreme, and is, in fact what most creationists refer to when they speak of evolution.
But consider that there may be some intermediates between these two. Consider that this extreme case may infact be a confusion between a process (continuous development of great complexity from simple origins) with a mechanism (Darwinian selection). Consider as well that the process itself is not in conflict with the first sentences of the Nicene creed. After all, how do we believe that the universe operates today. Do we, as Christian Theists, truly buy the idea that natural law is a separate entity operating above and beyond the universe, regulating it in clocklike fashion, and that all else is meaningless chaos unless God specifically steps in with a miracle? That kind of God is compatible with the deist position, the disinterested watchmaker, or perhaps even with the Gnostics, who divorced matter and spirit to the point where GOd was loath to touch the physical world, but that kind of God is not Christian.
No, our God is one whom, in the words of Lewis, "Likes matter because He invented it." He is the God who we read cares for each individual sparrow if it falls. He is a God who is at once trancendent and other, but also immanent, lovingly shaping each aspect of His world so that all is done in accordance with his plans. This can even be seen in the effects of human free will and sin, for does not the New Testament say that "All things work together for good to them that love God."
It seems to me that those that vigorously defend special creation (as opposed to creation in general) are threatened by the concept of a God who does not accomplish his greatest works by discontinuous miracle. But this threat is, in the end, for a God who is intimately involved with the continuing story of each separate part of his creation, giving it meaning and guiding it where he wishes it to be, is a far more sovereign and mighty God than one who sets up the universe at the beginning and then lets it go until a further discontinuous event is required to add some new component. I am not in this for a moment suggesting that creation is not a miracle, but I am saying that that miracle need not manifest itself as a discontinuity in nature to make it miraculous. Consider even the parting of the red sea, which Exodus says was accomplished by a mighty wind. The outcome was both miraculous and meaningful, but natural agency was used and there is no implied discontinuity.
That was a fairly long diatribe to make what is, in the end, a simple point. It is not evolution that is anti-christian, but the mechanism of evolution. With due regards to all Christian darwinists out there, I will go on record as saying that it is the darwininan mechanism in particular, which elevates combat, competition, and selfishness to the level of prime creative forces, which do offer opposition to a Christian worldview. The common descent of species, the age of the universe, the development (from a natural view) of complexity from simpleness do not, precisely because the Christian God is not limited to moments of discontinuity to do his work, but instead infuses all of the created order with His purpose as He endeavors to bring all things, even those that war against him in sinful pride, into submission to Christ.
Why is this important? Beause for too long discontinuous creationism has been used as a litmus test of Biblical Christianity. Remember this, "That if you will confess with your mouth Jesus is Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved." That, and not interpretations of Genesis, is what unites us in the One Body.
Perhaps I'll get a chance to write more regarding Genesis later.
Aaron
There has, over the past several years, been no end of disputed between those who believe in the special creation of the world (particularly those who would locate it temporally at around 4000-6000 BC), and those who believe that the world was formed over billions of years in a continuous process that many call evolution. While, as always, time and space constrain what I am able to speak of here, my goal as a scientist, a physician, and an evangelical Christian, is to clarify exactly what evolution can and cannot mean. This is not trivial, for whenever I discuss this issue with other believers, I am continually struck with the great variety of meaning that the word can contain. This is made even more an issue by the fact that some of those meaning are incompatible with Christian Belief, indeed with Theism in general, but the bulk are not.
That last sentence was a fairly big statement, and I'm sure there is a bevy of individuals out there who would accuse me of heresy. Let me say first then that as I go about defining this term, I am taking as my statement of faith regarding origins the first sentences of the Nicene Creed. I use this because i believe that the creed is Biblical, accurate, and a touchstone for Christians of all denominations.
We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is, seen and unseen.
This is what I intend to use as the basic core belief of the Christian faith regarding creation. Of course one can speak of compatibility with the Genesis text, but I do not have time to address this today (I may later) Suffice it to say that, as far as I am concerned, there are many valid interpretations of what Genesis 1 is intending to convey (Day-Age, Young Earth, Framework hypothesis, Days or Proclamation, etc). But most of us are familiar with at least some of these. Where the unfamiliarity lies in the evangelical worls is with what evolution really means.
In fact, evolution means many different things to many different people. It can mean the process known as Microevolution, whereby species and populations of animals alter there genetic makeup over time as a response to a changing environment. Most everyone believes this, Christian and Non-Christian alike, and so I will not address it today. This is not under dispute. We now get into more murky territory, however.
The next definition I would propose is the far extreme, the concept that man, the animals, indeed the cosmos itself, developed from simple origins by a process of goal-less natural selection operating on essentially random materials. This is the Darwinian thesis taken to an incredible extreme, and is, in fact what most creationists refer to when they speak of evolution.
But consider that there may be some intermediates between these two. Consider that this extreme case may infact be a confusion between a process (continuous development of great complexity from simple origins) with a mechanism (Darwinian selection). Consider as well that the process itself is not in conflict with the first sentences of the Nicene creed. After all, how do we believe that the universe operates today. Do we, as Christian Theists, truly buy the idea that natural law is a separate entity operating above and beyond the universe, regulating it in clocklike fashion, and that all else is meaningless chaos unless God specifically steps in with a miracle? That kind of God is compatible with the deist position, the disinterested watchmaker, or perhaps even with the Gnostics, who divorced matter and spirit to the point where GOd was loath to touch the physical world, but that kind of God is not Christian.
No, our God is one whom, in the words of Lewis, "Likes matter because He invented it." He is the God who we read cares for each individual sparrow if it falls. He is a God who is at once trancendent and other, but also immanent, lovingly shaping each aspect of His world so that all is done in accordance with his plans. This can even be seen in the effects of human free will and sin, for does not the New Testament say that "All things work together for good to them that love God."
It seems to me that those that vigorously defend special creation (as opposed to creation in general) are threatened by the concept of a God who does not accomplish his greatest works by discontinuous miracle. But this threat is, in the end, for a God who is intimately involved with the continuing story of each separate part of his creation, giving it meaning and guiding it where he wishes it to be, is a far more sovereign and mighty God than one who sets up the universe at the beginning and then lets it go until a further discontinuous event is required to add some new component. I am not in this for a moment suggesting that creation is not a miracle, but I am saying that that miracle need not manifest itself as a discontinuity in nature to make it miraculous. Consider even the parting of the red sea, which Exodus says was accomplished by a mighty wind. The outcome was both miraculous and meaningful, but natural agency was used and there is no implied discontinuity.
That was a fairly long diatribe to make what is, in the end, a simple point. It is not evolution that is anti-christian, but the mechanism of evolution. With due regards to all Christian darwinists out there, I will go on record as saying that it is the darwininan mechanism in particular, which elevates combat, competition, and selfishness to the level of prime creative forces, which do offer opposition to a Christian worldview. The common descent of species, the age of the universe, the development (from a natural view) of complexity from simpleness do not, precisely because the Christian God is not limited to moments of discontinuity to do his work, but instead infuses all of the created order with His purpose as He endeavors to bring all things, even those that war against him in sinful pride, into submission to Christ.
Why is this important? Beause for too long discontinuous creationism has been used as a litmus test of Biblical Christianity. Remember this, "That if you will confess with your mouth Jesus is Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved." That, and not interpretations of Genesis, is what unites us in the One Body.
Perhaps I'll get a chance to write more regarding Genesis later.
Aaron
6 Comments:
Knowledge is a two edge sword indeed. If it doesn't bring us to an ongoing and increasing fellowhsip with Him, it can be dangerous. Our greatest mission here is to learn obedience and discernment of His will.
I appreciate your text. Keep up writing!
Peace.
I also appreciate the thoughful approach of your blog.
I wonder why competition is seen as contra-christianity. Of all the mechanisms proposed for evolution, it is the most evident around us in nature. Someday the lion and lamb may nap together, but not yet.
I used to consider myself a theistic evolutionist, but I think intelligent design asks some valid questions about the mechanisms of evolution. The point is not just how God might have accomplished creating, but how did he.
Greg
I think your comment about competition is an interesting one. I still believe in Man as the intended vassal-lord of earthly nature, who then abdicated his throne through an act of pride (ie the fall). THat doctrine quite naturally leads to competition in nature. But what about before? I believe that we must look to Christ and his cross (the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world) for an answer. Might the creative force before all that have been closer to vicarious sacrifice than competition. After all, one could look at the cross as an act of competition between Judea and Rome, but as believers we see it as the self-offering of GOd. In the future we are told that the Lion will lie down with the Lamb. might it not be that in the past, the Lamb willingly laid down its life for the Lion?
A few thoughts on competition:
1) It occurs to me that we are somewhat biased when it comes to making proclamations about the goodness of competition. We are basically creatures who fear death, thereby we tend to view the world through a lens where death is bad. However, this is NOT necessarily God's perspective. I think certain kinds of death are bad, particularly wasteful and cruel ones. However, ecology is a complex web - symbiosis plays as much a role as competition. Predators keep herd populations in check, preventing plant eaters from over foraging other habitats. I'm no zoologist, but I think from a different perspective parts of what we call "natural selection" might not look as brutal, and might not be as dark as we think.
2) Rather than looking at life as a chain of destructive competition, you can also view it as a fantastic struggle for survival. The adaptation of organisms to deal with changing environments is a fantastic process. Granted, many adaptations fail, but given that no one has yet adapted out of death, the end result of the adaptation (the amazing diversity of life through the amazing diversity of the climatological aeons) is remarkable and beautiful. I'm not sure it's as dark as it looks from first glance, or not what God intended.
I see what you mean in regards to competition, but I still have a difficult time totally accepting it, especially when the words of Paul are considered in Romans 8. It would be much more theologically consistent to me if not only did man fall, but all creative mechanisms present on earth shared in it as well (the text does seem to imply that). I myself do not wish to embrace darwininan competition wholeheartedly until a thorough attempt ahs been made to answer the question "What creative mechanism could exist that darwinian evolution is the fallen version of?" It is a question that, in my mind, deserves consideration at the philosophical level, and to my knowledge, it is one that has not yet been asked.
When I sit and consider how great God is, Creator and Sustainer of this Universe, in all its vastness, diversity, and complexity, I kind of get overwhelmed and sometimes my head hurts and often I have to stop. My problem is the same as Adam's- I believe that I can understand Him and even outsmart Him. I put Him and His creation into a box which makes sense to me and brings me comfort. By recognizing this, that is exploding the black box, we affirm that He is God, we are man, and that He created the world in a manner which pleased him, whatever that may be.
As Aaron wrote, "...the Christian God is not limited to moments of discontinuity to do his work...". It brought me a strange sense of relief to recognize this. God may have created us through natural processes, as He did when he sent a great wind to separate the Red Sea. It is amazing and miraculous none the less.
What a powerful thing, when we confront our fears and explode the box. How wonderful it is to shine a flash light into the cob webs of our soul and come to plainly Him with our doubts and struggles. Jesus beckons us not to come after you believe. (In the words of them father of the boy with seizures in Mark: I believe, help my unbelief.) He simply becons us first to simply follow him and see.
-Faris
Post a Comment
<< Home