From dialoguing with several Christians on this matter, I've noticed that there seems to be a common concern undergirding every one of their refutations of evolution: they interpret within the theory of evolution an intrinsic denial of the existence of God. In one of my conversations, the person went so far as to say that it was a sin that the theory of evolution was ever introduced - and cursed me for not agreeing with him that the world would have been a better place if it hadn't been proposed!
It's clear that a lot of Christians fear evolution because they seem to think that it dethrones God; therefore, they fight it and curse it (and those who believe in it) without listening to what it has to say - both scientifically and philosophically. The minute the word "evolution" is uttered, they immediately associate it with all of their prejudices, some of which are not their fault (the church, after all, is a very influential institution).
And thus, we get to the crux of my argument - You want to know why I think Christians fear evolution? Because the church has taught them to. How many churches really listen to what evolutionists have to say? If they "listen" at all, it's usually for the purposes of trying to prove them wrong (this may seem like an unfair statement, but I seriously cannot remember a time when the church ever talked about evolution without it being the source of ontological conflict that gave rise to the theory of Intelligent Design).
This is why I'm so hesitant to have any dealings with "I.D." theories. It seems as if the whole system of beliefs is a reactionary position against the defamation of God by evolution - which is a misunderstanding of the theory altogether. Darwin never intended to prove the non-existence of God. He never made cosmological claims about the emergence of the universe as a whole. His thesis is very explicitly stated in his title: "On the Origin of Species". He merely wanted to derive a theory that would help explain the physical emergence of life on this planet by means of natural processes.
It's at this point that I think the church has deemed evolution "blasphemous" - they are afraid of the "naturalism" that it introduces. Why do we seem to think that every creative act of God needs to be a supernatural or metaphysical one? Does it make God less omnipotent if He refrained from using "miracles" to create our reality? What if God decided to let the earth operate within the physical parameters He set forth in order to bring about our existence? Does that make Him any less powerful or any less awesome? I'm not proposing a deistic interpretation of God, He is - after all - actively and directly influencing our lives through the power of the Holy Spirit. I'm merely proposing that maybe we have misunderstood God's creativity. What are your thoughts.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
The motivation for an argument has nothing to do with its validity. While it's fine to have these attitudes of the church in mind, I.D. should be held or not on its own merits.
I don't think I ever questioned the validity of Intelligent Design, nor even the motivation for its derivation. I actually think it's a good argument, and it was probably founded upon noble principles. However, a good and noble argument can still be used irresponsibly by its proponents, and that is why I part ways with many Christians who adhere to the theory of Intelligent Design - because they use it as a means of combating Darwinist evolution when the two theories are not mutually exclusive in the first place (unless you use the terms "Biblical Six-Day Creationism" and "Intelligent Design" interchangeably, which would be a severe misnomer). My point was simply this: many Christians have misguided notions about Darwinist evolution (instilled within them by the church) which thereby prompts them to misuse the theory of Intelligent Design as a means of rebuttal. That's a circle of thought that I would rather not be associated with.
I wanted to jump into this discussion earlier, but not before doing some research. Then other projects pulled me away...until now. So, I'm back and found some good reading at BreakPoint.org. I didn't want to merely respond out of personal assumptions - your questions have caused me to look more carefully at the issues.
For starters, I'd like to attempt to address some of the issues raised:
The purpose of the church is to teach the truth to equip the Body and reach out to bring others into the Kingdom - Eph. 4:12 "And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ." Teaching the latest scientific theories isn't a high priority - and scientific findings are constantly in flux. Think of it - we're a long way from even what was accepted scientific truths in, say 1900. Still, I can see the validity of helping students who are dealing with those theories in school (and any other interested parties) grapple with them in light of what scripture teaches. I have not personally experienced the church being fearful of evolution, rather coherently pointing out its inadequacies for explaining the complexities of living things. Genesis describes the Creator making land animals and fish of the sea and birds of the air, each after their own kind, which seems incompatible with Darwin's Tree of Life - single cell life developing into numerous species.
Here's a piece by Chuck Colson that deals with the question whether one can be a Christian and hold to Darwinian evolution. (There are more interesting articles for your consideration at http://www.breakpoint.org/listings.asp?id=159&display=Display+by+Topic - check out "Naturalism" under World View topic, or look under the topic "Health and Science")
Creation and Evolution: Are Both True?
By Charles Colson 5/19/2004
Understanding the Difference
There’s a name for this line of reasoning: theistic evolution. The idea that perhaps evolution was directed by God appears to be an attractive solution and one frequently embraced by Christian students trying to reconcile their faith with the teachings of their science teachers.
Evolution’s basic premise makes this approach inherently flawed, however. Imagining that evolutionary theory allows for a Creator—that evolution could be a God-guided process—is exactly what establishment scientists do not allow.
Prominent Darwinists from Stephen Gould to Richard Dawkins to John Maynard Smith insist that evolution is unguided and purposeless. As Phillip Johnson puts it in Defeating Darwinism, “The Darwinian theory doesn’t just say that God created slowly [over millions of years]. It says that naturalistic evolution is the creator—and God had nothing to do with it.”
Evolution in the Darwinian sense is both mindless and godless. As the famous evolutionist George Gaylord Simpson put it, “Man is the result of a purposeless and natural process that did not have him in mind.”
Darwinists cannot afford to abandon this claim, Johnson says, because their whole approach is founded on naturalism, the doctrine that nature is all there is. Darwinian evolution tries to explain how nature did this without any assistance from a supernatural entity. Thus, an attempt to reconcile Darwinian evolution theories with creation “is an evasion of the conflict, not a resolution to it,” Johnson warns.
People are kidding themselves when they think they can believe in both creation and evolution. What’s at stake is not merely the details of evolution versus the details of Genesis in the Bible. Rather, the issue is the stark, fundamental claim that life is the product of impersonal forces versus the claim that it is the creation of an intelligent Designer.
Related Resources:
Learn more about intelligent design at the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture.
The Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness Center helps students start chapters on college and high school campuses to foster communication about evolution and intelligent design.
My first reaction is that the above referenced article is exactly the sort of either/or proposition that only causes further polarization. Again, the so-called "prominent Darwinists" is a term that lays the foundation for misunderstanding on several levels. For one, I tend to reject the term "Darwinist" altogether as a made-up label by those who would want to over-simplify and mischaracterize entire communities and institutions in our culture. It's the type of label that, consiously or not, creates a sense of fear and loathing for "all those people." But that's a mirage, a spector that we, as Christians, have set up possibly to help us make our case; but unfortunately only causes more harm than good.
Second, I reiterate the assertion that holding visible personalities such as Dawkins as representative of the scientific community or the atheist community or the scholarly class, etc. is equally misleading. Within each of the aforementioned groups, Dawkins is only regarded as visible; but far from representative. I would suspect the same can be said for others like Gould that are quoted quite often by well-meaning Christians who are trying to make their case. Yes, they are prominent - perhaps this visibility is exacerbated by our own frequent references; but if you ask the well-informed, well-read atheist, one who's come to their conclusions through much thought, and I would challenge you to find one who relies on the authority of such figures.
There are other areas in terms of content and approach that I think Mr. Colson's article is flawed. But the one against which I want to push is the indemic oversimplification of these supposed adversarial points of view. We would never want anyone to judge Christianity based on its abuses. We should accord seemingly opposing points of view the same courtesy. Before discounting a most extreme adversarial worldview (i.e. atheism), perhaps we should read the more challenging, scholarly material of someone like Bertrand Russell.
Unfortunately, this article is an inevitable product of our times. Hyper-polarization. Two opposing views. No in between. Separate sides. Only one extreme or the other. And these warring factions profile each other only simplistically enough to throw bombs at each other, talk at each other, not with each other.
Regarding our subject, I certainly don't think it's one or the other. One rather sophomoric possibility that I've pondered is that perhaps God created the heavens and the earth in 7 24 hour days. But he created it with information already in it that would lead us to a theory such as evolution. After all, when he created Adam, the man wasn't an infant. But again, that's one possiblity which I'm sure can be over-simplified and villified as unorthodox, looking for excuses, deist, theist, unChristian and the like. Not to let scientists off the hook, I'm sure they could throw darts at my simple theory as well. But that's just the point. Why must it be "evolution on the attack"? Why couldn't we have a culture that says, "Hmm. Evolution. That's interesting. Let's look into it, consider it, talk about it." It just seems we only look into something deep enough to find fodder for these legalistic styles of showing how silly, inconceivable and evil they are.
It's funny (not so much funny hah, hah, in as much, sometimes want to tear your hair out, kind of funny) that so much of the kind of discussion that needs to be had on our approach to Evolution comes down not so much to what is said per se, but what is implied in the statements made. Over-statements sell books, make headlines, and get you on talk radio, but I just can't believe that people literally believe that the world is so absolutely black and white.
That's why the issue comes down not so much to the merits of whatever scientific theory is in discussion, but instead more toward the charity necessary for the dialog.
For instance:
"Evolution = scientific theory opposed to God in its very nature" - then I now have an identified enemy, and I feel it my duty to attack! Kiss goodbye my chance of a loving relationship with anyone who believes it.
but:
"Evolution = scientific theory" - then, okay, what do you mean by that (what is the theory?) and let's look at it.
It's all in the approach - surely we are not the only ones unfairly categorizing people or beliefs here, but as far as I know, we ARE called to be the ones who are most charitable in the discussion.
...do you ever feel like you're always preaching the same message?
Charity... Yes... I've heard rumors about this thing, charity. Not sure what it is; but I've heard that it might be a good thing.
From your original post:
"Darwin never intended to prove the non-existence of God. He never made cosmological claims about the emergence of the universe as a whole. His thesis is very explicitly stated in his title: "On the Origin of Species". He merely wanted to derive a theory that would help explain the physical emergence of life on this planet by means of natural processes.
It's at this point that I think the church has deemed evolution "
Something to consider as you work through this issue. You are correct that science never sets out to prove (or support) the non-existence of God. It does however limit its range of explanations to those that do not require the "intervention" of God or some other non-natural entity. Science must, a priori, preclude a non uniform, non natural cause (i.e. a miracle).
It's necessary for it to do this, and I don't knock scientists for doing this. But a philosophical problem arises with the idea of a theistic God who intervenes in his creation—a God who performs miracles. Miracles and science simply don't mix.
Scripture describes the origin of species, as a miracle. Science can neither verify, nor falsify miracles and thus and huge problem develops. If it is true, as Genesis says, that God used miracles to create the world (including the species), then science will become a very limited tool. Prior to any scientific discussions, a philosophical-theological question must first be addressed. Was the origin of the subject in question the result of natural processes, or miraculous ones? If the latter is true, then science will be a very limited tool. For the origins of the species (and of the entire universe for that matter) is not a scientific issue per se. It is primarily a philosophical one at least initially.
I just want to add that this in no way is a knock against science. Science is valuable in many areas. But science has limits due to its necessary presuppositions. Uniformity of natural laws is one of these, and Genesis very clearly explains that there was nothing natural about our origin.
Hope that helps.
Post a Comment