- RSS FeedSubscribe
- « Previous PostA La Carte (11/20)
- Next Post »A La Carte (11/21)
Darwin on the Right
- 11/20/08
- 52
This Sunday I’ll be preaching on the topic of Creation in an evening series at my church. Our Sunday evening format allows for only short sermons and I am trying to distill the broad topic of Creation down to the most fundamental points. I have no intention of defending Creation against evolution or of refuting the various views among Christians that conflict with the position of my church’s leadership (though I am sure some of that will arise in the Q&A that follows the sermon). But as I was thinking about the subject of Creation, my mind was drawn to this article I read a couple of years ago. It argues that Christians can and should embrace evolution and lays out the reasons we can do so while remaining faithful to the Bible.
Scientific American is a popular science magazine with a monthly circulation approaching 700,000. Including foreign language editions, the circulation increases to over 1,000,000. First published in 1845, it is the oldest continuously published magazine in the United States. Quite needless to say, it is not a publication that is particularly friendly to creationism. In the October 2006 edition is a column by Michael Shermer, publisher of Skeptic, a magazine produced by The Skeptics Society, which “engages in scientific investigation and journalistic research to investigate claims made by scientists, historians, and controversial figures on a wide range of subjects.” His column is titled “Darwin on the Right: Why Christians and conservatives should accept evolution.” The column is a brief attempt to lay out six reasons that Christians should embrace evolution. I’d like to take a brief look at each of Shermer’s six points. He begins with statistics:
According to a 2005 Pew Research Center poll, 70 percent of evangelical Christians believe that living beings have always existed in their present form, compared with 32 percent of Protestants and 31 percent of Catholics. Politically, 60 percent of Republicans are creationists, whereas only 11 percent accept evolution, compared with 29 percent of Democrats who are creationists and 44 percent who accept evolution. A 2005 Harris Poll found that 63 percent of liberals but only 37 percent of conservatives believe that humans and apes have a common ancestry. What these figures confirm for us is that there are religious and political reasons for rejecting evolution. Can one be a conservative Christian and a Darwinian? Yes. Here’s how.
One immediate observation is that he makes a distinction between evangelicals Christians and Protestants, yet does not define these terms. In theory, every Protestant is evangelical and every evangelical is Protestant. So I am uncertain as to how we are to distinguish between these two. Regardless, we will press on.
1. Evolution fits well with good theology. Christians believe in an omniscient and omnipotent God. What difference does it make when God created the universe—10,000 years ago or 10,000,000,000 years ago? The glory of the creation commands reverence regardless of how many zeroes in the date. And what difference does it make how God created life—spoken word or natural forces? The grandeur of life’s complexity elicits awe regardless of what creative processes were employed. Christians (indeed, all faiths) should embrace modern science for what it has done to reveal the magnificence of the divine in a depth and detail unmatched by ancient texts.
I will be the first to affirm that the Bible is not a scientific text. Neither was it intended to be such. However, if we are to believe that the Bible is God’s word and that what God has spoken is true, we must also believe that what God says about science must be true. When God says that the world was created by His command, we must believe it to be so. Shermer asks, “what difference does it make how God created life—spoken word or natural forces?” The difference is that the Bible tells us God created the world by His spoken word. We are not able to believe in the Bible as God’s word and reject Scripture’s clear teaching that life was created from nothing and at God’s command. I agree that “Christians … should embrace modern science for what it has done to reveal the magnificence of the divine in a depth and detail unmatched by ancient texts.” But science has not proven evolution. It has not proven that the world was created in any way other than at God’s command. I embrace modern science, but only so far as it is compatible with Scripture and plain reason. Evolution does not fit with good theology, for evolution and Scripture are wholly incompatible. If we are to embrace evolution, it will be at the expense of the Bible.
2. Creationism is bad theology. The watchmaker God of intelligent-design creationism is delimited to being a garage tinkerer piecing together life out of available parts. This God is just a genetic engineer slightly more advanced than we are. An omniscient and omnipotent God must be above such humanlike constraints. As Protestant theologian Langdon Gilkey wrote, “The Christian idea, far from merely representing a primitive anthropomorphic projection of human art upon the cosmos, systematically repudiates all direct analogy from human art.” Calling God a watchmaker is belittling.
Calling God a watchmaker is clearly belittling, but I do not know of any Christians who believe that God fills this role. God is not a mere garage tinkerer who pieces life together from available parts. Rather, God is the one who not only created life as an idea, as a concept, but who created the available parts and who then assembled them in an orderly fashion. To suggest that God is only slightly more advanced than we are is to ignore the vast gaps that continue to exist in human knowledge. Humans may have been able to map the genome, but a great deal of work remains; an infinite amount of work. The more we conquer, the more we realize we still need to conquer. And one thing humans have never been able to do and will never be able to do is create life ex nihilo, from nothing. We may be able to arrange and rearrange the building blocks of life in some semblance of order, but we are not able to make something from nothing. That is the realm of God alone. Creationism is not bad theology, but is the theology of the Bible. It is not an optional doctrine, but something we must believe if we are to be men and women of the Bible.
3. Evolution explains original sin and the Christian model of human nature. As a social primate, we evolved within-group amity and between-group enmity. By nature, then, we are cooperative and competitive, altruistic and selfish, greedy and generous, peaceful and bellicose; in short, good and evil. Moral codes and a society based on the rule of law are necessary to accentuate the positive and attenuate the negative sides of our evolved nature.
This third point begins with a premise that is accepted only by evolutionists. As Christians we do not believe that humans evolved at all, but that we were deliberately placed on this earth and were made to rule it. To attempt to explain original sin through between-group enmity is to completely misrepresent original sin. Between-group enmity is unable to explain why it is that every human being, no matter his age, culture, race, or gender is sinful. It is unable to explain why we all do things that are wrong and why we all delight in doing wrong even to our within-group. It is unable to explain what is clearly spiritual. Evolution cannot explain original sin or the Christian model of human nature. It cannot explain the conscience, the soul, or sinful nature.
4. Evolution explains family values. The following characteristics are the foundation of families and societies and are shared by humans and other social mammals: attachment and bonding, cooperation and reciprocity, sympathy and empathy, conflict resolution, community concern and reputation anxiety, and response to group social norms. As a social primate species, we evolved morality to enhance the survival of both family and community. Subsequently, religions designed moral codes based on our evolved moral natures.
“Attachment and bonding, cooperation and reciprocity, sympathy and empathy, conflict resolution, community concern and reputation anxiety, and response to group social norms” are all characteristics of families. However, all of these characteristics are as easily and even more easily explained by creation rather than evolution. Could God not have given us the desire to attach and bond? Could he not have made us sympathetic and make us desire to resolve conflicts amicably? Even a brief overview of the Bible will prove this to be true. To suggest that religions designed moral codes based upon moral natures is to put the cart before the horse, for is it not more likely that a moral code existed with God before creation was begun, and that our natures were created in a way consistent with this code? Is it not likely that God, whose moral nature included moral codes, designed us in His image and built that code into us? Is this not an explanation for the laws that seem so clearly to be written into the hearts of all humans? Evolution cannot explain family values and can certainly not explain more codes. A glance at the conflict over the right of homosexuals to marry will show the vast difference between an understanding of family as rooted in naturalistic evolution and of family rooted in God’s creative design.
5. Evolution accounts for specific Christian moral precepts. Much of Christian morality has to do with human relationships, most notably truth telling and marital fidelity, because the violation of these principles causes a severe breakdown in trust, which is the foundation of family and community. Evolution describes how we developed into pair-bonded primates and how adultery violates trust. Likewise, truth telling is vital for trust in our society, so lying is a sin.
Christian morality has to do primarily with imitating God who is true and who is faithful. The violation of these principles may case a severe breakdown in truth, but far worse, violation of these principles causes a growing rift between creature and Creator. Christian morality involves human relationships, but only secondarily to the relationship between God and man. Evolution may offer some description of how humans developed into pair-bonded primates and how adultery violates trust. But the Bible offers an answer that is far more clear and far more likely: God created marriage so that human beings could emulate the relationship of Jesus Christ to His people. Truth telling is vital for trust, but even more vital to maintain relationship between God and man. Lying is a sin because it makes a mockery of God who not only tells the truth, but is the very source of truth. Evolution absolutely cannot account for specific moral precepts in a way that is satisfying. And, ironically, evolution is the worldview that underlies the acceptance of non-traditional relationships such as homosexual marriage. Could it be that evolution can be used to explain anything?
6. Evolution explains conservative free-market economics. Charles Darwin’s “natural selection” is precisely parallel to Adam Smith’s “invisible hand.” Darwin showed how complex design and ecological balance were unintended consequences of competition among individual organisms. Smith showed how national wealth and social harmony were unintended consequences of competition among individual people. Nature’s economy mirrors society’s economy. Both are designed from the bottom up, not the top down.
This sixth point does not seem to fit with the rest of the list. While the other five have dealt with principles that are distinctly Christian, this one turns to free-market economics. Shermer may as well have said “Evolution explains the American obsession with team sports.” I know little of economics, free market or otherwise, so will leave this point as-is, except to point out that simply because two theories parallel one another does not make either true.
The article concludes with an exhortation and a passage from Scripture. “Because the theory of evolution provides a scientific foundation for the core values shared by most Christians and conservatives, it should be embraced. The senseless conflict between science and religion must end now, or else, as the Book of Proverbs (11:29) warned: ‘He that troubleth his own house shall inherit the wind.’”
There does not need to be a conflict between science and religion. In a perfect world, there would be no conflict, and, indeed, when the world is remade there will be no conflict. What we see in this debate is not a competition between science and religion, but a conflict between worldviews. These worldviews are wholly incompatible. Michael Ruse, a well-known evolutionist, speaks truthfully when he says “evolution came into being as a kind of secular ideology, an explicit substitute for Christianity…Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and is true of evolution still today.” Evolution is not mere science, but is religion dressed as science. Evolution, and the naturalism that lies behind it, is a full-blown worldview, and in reality, is a religious system that stands in direct opposition to Christianity. The true conflict, the conflict between evolution and creationism, is a conflict of truth and error, a conflict of God and man. Creationism embraces God as the Creator and Sustainer of the world; evolutionism rejects God replaces Him with time, chance and opportunity. The debate between creationism and evolutionism is by no means senseless, for it is a defense of the truth and a defense of the One who is Truth.
I am a follower of Jesus Christ, a husband to Aileen and a father to three young children. I worship and serve as a pastor at 
Releasing on April 1, The Next
Published in 2008, this book
This is a guide that calls men,
This review of the bestselling
New to the site? You can get
This is a guide written
Comments (52)
Well that was a long read and my eyes are burning… :)
A Christian that believes that evolution is how God created the world is going to need to explain why the Bible clearly states that death did not exist before the fall. In order for Adam and Eve to have evolved into humans a whole lot of death had to occur.
Excellent blog entry!
I wrestled a long time with the evolution/(dinosaur) woldview and the Bible worldview. Answers in Genesis helped me reconcile these two subjects into a worldview that is intellectually and spiritually satisfying to me.
I highly recommend Answers in Genesis to help people understand the flaws of evolution and how true science and the Bible are 100% compatible.
I agree with much of what you say here, Tim. You mention that the Bible is not a science text book, and in this you are absolutely correct, but then you go on to say that we must listen to what God tells us about science.
But if the Bible is not a science book, then is he telling us stuff about science, or is there a different purpose to the book? If there is a different purpose to the Book, do we diminish the key message by focussing on incidentals to the story?
I agree that there are many things that the Bible says which have implications for our understanding of science. (Such as the understanding that there was no death for humankind before the sin of Adam and Eve. Also that humanity was created specially by God, and not of common descent from a single ancestor.)
But I also think that there is much within creation, and science, which can expand our understanding of God. Reformed theology has long held that there are two ways by which we know God, general and special revelation.
As it says in the Belgic Confession, article 2.
“We know God by two means: First by the creation, preservation, and governance of the universe, since that universe is before our eyes like a beautiful book in which all creatures, great and small, are as letters to make us ponder the invisible things of God: his eternal power and his divinity, as the apostle Paul says in Romans 1:20. ‘All these things are enough to convict men and to leave them without excuse.’ Second, he makes himself known to us more openly by his holy and divine word, as much as we need in this life, for his glory and our salvation.”
The two never stand in contradiction to each other, but God had a specific purpose in the scriptures, and it is not to teach us about the world, but about him.
Tim, you did a great job bringing out the fact that we all have the same “evidence”. Therefore the argument does not come down to a matter of who has the most evidence for their viewpoint, it’s an argument of presuppositions.
Shermer has “belief” in evolution because it is his worldview and his “religion” which he proves by placing his faith in man’s reasoning as the ultimate authority. We have the belief in God as Creator because we place our faith in the Word. In both cases, everything around us is seen from the lens of those presuppositions.
Thank you for standing firm in the Word, and I pray your sermon series goes well.
Brilliant post - I second Ryans endorsement of Answers in Genesis.
Thanks Tim!
I agree with the line that “evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups”. Christians should accept what has been proven, small changes within a species (although species is a man-made term that doesn’t necessarily match up to what God referred to as a kind) and denounce any suggestion of large scale change that explains how one species became another. We as Christians also should point out, at every opportunity we get, that evolution says nothing, zip, nada, bupcus about origins. IOW, the one thing that can be seen, natural selection resulting in a change within a species, (usually from a loss of information, never a gain in information) has been exaggerated into an explanation of everything. As far as the age of the earth, God couldn’t have been more clear when he said six days, qualified them with evening and morning and called them good and very good that they were ordinary days that there was no place for evolution (with its death and disease) to exist in the creation account. There is simply no reason to believe otherwise unless someone is allowing “outside influences” to dictate their reading of the bible. Much more could be said on this like how does the fourth commandment make any sense if it wasn’t six normal days or did Jonah spend millions of years in the whale, etc. etc.
I agree with those who have pointed to Answers In Genesis. I would also recommend The Institute for Creation Research at http://www.icr.org/. They have a walk through creation museum down in the San Diego area. It is not as fancy as AIG’s but very impressive and it gives one a full-blown creation education by just walking through it. They have moved some of there offices to… Texas?.. I believe, but the museum is still running… and free.
As a Christian who believes that God created the world ex nihilo and used evolution as part of His creation process, I can’t say I agree with a lot of these arguments posted. In fact, the only one that I think we ought to take seriously is argument #1, because I really don’t see the contradiction inherent in subscribing to the general scientific consensus about macroevolution unless you must interpret Genesis 1 in a six-day viewpoint.
Christians who believe that God created the world and used evolution still believe that He created it ex nihilo and that His sovereign predestination and/or active involvement created life in the world. There is nothing in Genesis that says that God could not have used natural forces, and I think we don’t do justice to the text when we say that that *must* be true.
If God used evolution to create the world as we know it, then that inspires more awe in me as I realize how complex biological systems are and how God created this capacity for evolution knowing how they would eventually produce the incredible diversity and complexity we see today.
Also, let me add quickly that if you choose to reject the theory of evolution, you should not do so lightly— most of the well-respected Christian colleges and universities (Grove City, Wheaton, Baylor, etc.) have science departments that teach the modern scientific consensus on evolution, and the majority of scientists who are Christians subscribe to the theory of evolution (visit the American Scientific Affiliation to learn more.) Numerous well-respected Christian teachers and thinkers have been evolutionists, including C.S. Lewis, B.B. Warfield, Billy Graham, and Mark Noll. If you read Answers in Genesis, for the sake of fairness you ought to read another site like Talk Origins FAQ because there is a large summary of the evidence for evolution that AiG or ICR doesn’t ever discuss.
Shermer is essentially telling us why evolutionary theory is compatible with Deism, with the exception of the watchmaker God analogy. Tim, you are right in your assessment of the watchmaker God and what it (doesn’t) have to do with Christianity.
I think that the last point is actually very telling. Referring to Adam Smith’s theory is a reminder of the world in which Darwin lived. Darwin would have been educated in the naturalist theories of Smith, Locke and Hume. If his theory fits well with what they perceived as the way the world works, is it perhaps because they were major influences on his thinking? Yes, he disagrees with their faith in a Creator, but did their dismissal of miracles and divine revelation not open the door to the outright rejection of a Creator and a wider application of naturalism? Evolution is secular philosophy as applied to science and is no less based on someone’s beliefs than my own creationism.
As an aside, Shermer’s assumption that naturalist philosophy of Deists is equivalent to Christianity is no worse than what the “Christian” history books that we used when I was a kid did by telling us that founding fathers were Christians instead of Deists. Some may have been truly Christian, but many certainly were not. Calling them all Christians and saying that our country is built on Christian values rather than Deism is academic dishonesty. We should seek truth in all things, not just in religion.
Excellent, Tim!I think you have a good grasp of the issues.Note at the end of Shermer’s 6th point he slips in this assertion that “design” can be either top down or bottom up. This notion is patently false but has been insidiously warping minds into thinking it to be true. “Design” by definition is top down, meaning a designer or intelligence is required to impart information into something and assumes a telos in the end product. Bottom up “design” is not really design, its just “where ever we end up from here”. They try to change the definitions of words in order to make their argument. Watch out for it!I also encourage any who are rusty on the TRUE observations of evolution and the FALSE inferences to check out my cheat sheet here:
http://queenofthesciences.blogspot.com/2008/06/truth-of-evolution.html
Universal common ancestry is ONE structure you could impose on the observations, but so is intelligent design (plus, it makes a whole lot more sense).
Evolutionary Theory IS belief in God. Not only do I and Michael Shermer share that sentiment, but so to the Roman Catholic Church.
First and foremost, God created the Universe. Thus all that we learn while examining Creation reveals Truth. For example, the Bible does not discuss quarks (the components that make atoms) yet they really do exist. Did scientists Murray Gell-Mann and George Zweig invent the quark in 1964 and surreptitiously add it to all matter in a grand secular conspiracy? Of course not. Instead they discovered a fundamental truth that has existed almost as long as the universe itself.
They same can be said for biological adaptation through evolution. This a truth revealed in the very workings of the DNA, genes and chromosomes of all lifeforms. In evolution, scientists have not created truth — they have merely discovered what has been true for billions of years.
Second, upon close examination, the Bible - like the story of Adam and Eve - proves to be more moral parable than absolute scientific fact. Case in point: nipples. God created Adam with nipples! — a functionally unnecessary and irrelevant bit of biology that happens to be genetic trait common to male apes, monkeys, and mammals in general. And God did this before there was Eve or a need for human reproduction. The reason? Man has nipples because our mammalian ancestors had nipples. It’s a lineage we can trace with both fossil and genetic evidence.
What the Adam and Eve story reveals is that this was the first generation of humans who had a brain capable of understanding death, purpose, and the depth of God’s love. Those who preceded them (and there were human ancestors before Adam and Eve) had “animal” minds like Chimpanzees and Gorillas. And Genesis tells us that Animals were created before Man.
Together, points one and two demonstrate that God’s actual universe is (and in scientific matters, moreso) as truthful as Mankind’s various interpretations of scripture. So when we look at the Universe, we’re looking directly at God (when Catholics say God is everywhere, they really mean it.) A part of God is quarks and DNA. A part of God is the evolutionary process. And a part of God is Man, built of quarks and DNA through the evolutionary process. Deny that, and you deny God’s choice of Creation.
That’s blasphemy.
To those who would argue that God created the universe then used evolution to create the life we see:
What kind of god would use billions of years of death and suffering to accomplish his goals even though he had the power to do it all in an instant?
You can have that god.
That is not the God of the Bible who called everything in His creation “very good” (Gen 1:31). It is also not the God who wrote “For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them.” (Exod 20:11). And it is not the God that inspired Paul to say there was no death before Adam (Romans 5:12).
You (and the Christian colleges and scientists you mentioned) are using science (man’s reasoning) to interpret scripture (God’s Word) rather than scripture to interpret science. That is a slippery slope that was first used by Satan himself when He asked “Did God REALLY say??” (Gen 3:1)
“What kind of god would use billions of years of death and suffering to accomplish his goals even though he had the power to do it all in an instant?
You can have that god.”
That is poor poor poor logic. It’s clear *from scripture* that God has used thousands of years of death and suffering to accomplish His goals, even though he has the power to do it all in an instant. A difference in scale, certainly, but the same type of action.
But to say that God’s *original intent* was to use billions of years of death and suffering is not in scripture. Genesis 1 and 2 are clear that He meant for his creation to be in perfect submission and harmony with him and to show His holiness and perfection.
(addition): Death and suffering are not God’s fault, but man’s.
Also, #13, we use “man’s reasoning” to interpret God’s Word all the time. Sometimes it’s called “Systematic Theology.” If we overuse it, that’s bad. If we underuse it, we can’t make sense of Scripture, or harmonize it with what we know from science, history, reason, and philosophy.
Some have argued (like Augustine and Origen) that a six-day view of creation wasn’t in the text even before we knew about evolution. So while scientific discovery certainly helps us lean in the interpretation of specific texts (such as Psalm 104:5), there are certainly many arguments within the text itself that have led people to suggest alternative interpretations regardless of what science says.
Orthodox Jews (like the Rabbinical Council of America, the Jewish Theological Seminary of America, and the Committee on Jewish Law and Standards) do not believe that Genesis was literal and accept evolution to be true. They should know — it was the Jews (not Christians) who first recorded the story of Genesis.
Great job TimEvolution is compatible with a liberal rendering of Scripture, but it is not compatible with a conservative rendering of Scripture.In order to believe in evolution one must start with the theory of evolution and try to make it fit with Scripture. In other words, theory becomes the interpreter of Scripture.Scripture must never be interpreted by any outside source; it must always be interpreted by Scripture.For instance I believe that the earth and everything in it was created in 6 days consisting of 24 hours each day.The word Hebrew” Yom” (Day) in Genesis chapter one though out Scripture whenever the word “Yom” is used with a numeral, it always refers to a 24 hour period of time. If we are to believe that the Bible is inspired by God and infallible as originally given, then to be consistent we should believe that the Earth was created in 6/24 hour days, just like Genesis chapter one tells us.By the way, I agree with the person, who recommended Answers in Genesis; it is a very good ministry for those who want to know how to defend their faith from both a biblical and a scientific point of view. They rightly state that both evolution and creation are presuppositions, whether we realize it or not.They also correctly state that the word science is about demonstrable facts, not theory or presuppositions. Both evolutionist and creationist scientists operate with the same facts. The thing that separates them is their presuppositions, which have not proven scientifically.
R Hampton said: “Orthodox Jews (like the Rabbinical Council of America, the Jewish Theological Seminary of America, and the Committee on Jewish Law and Standards) do not believe that Genesis was literal and accept evolution to be true. They should know — it was the Jews (not Christians) who first recorded the story of Genesis.”
They also don’t believe that Jesus is the Messiah, and don’t believe that the OT passages that prophecy Jesus coming, describe their Messiah.With those things in mind, unless you believe they could be correct about Jesus, then why do you give them more credibility than the top conservative theologians today?
Tom Hardy, you asked: Why would I give Orthodox Jews more credibility than the top conservative theologians today?
Because they were there, and they wrote it down - the entire Old Testament - centuries before the birth of Christ. Today there are Jews that still speak, read and write in that ancient tongue, passed down the generations along with the Hebrew scriptures And if you want to study the source material for the first book of the Bible, you must be fluent in Hebrew.
Isn’t that why you believe in the Christian teachings of Jesus? His followers (the early Catholic Church) were there, and their sons eventually wrote it down decades later in Koine Greek. Today you study the Bible in English and learn of its original meaning through a Church who has passed on that knowledge for two thousand years.
R. Hampton
Based on your latest response, I thought I would give you something else to chew on.How did Moses and his hearers understand the Genesis account; literal, spiritualized or fiction? (Hint: Ex 20:8-11) Is it not also funny that the Jews continue to consider a “day” the period of time between sunset and sunrise (“And the evening and the morning were the first [second] [third], etc. day”). We see this clearly in the Gospel records concerning the burial and resurrection of Christ.
The day tha DNA was discovered, Darwinistic evolution died a quiet death. The reason: even if you give the evolutionist a 15 billion year old universe that they argue for, their estimation of the atom count in the universe, and a lifespan of less than 1 second for each generation, then there is not enough time nor enough atoms in the universe to create the simplest of biologic creature. In short, the information in the DNA had to come from somewhere. Simple statistics proves that Darwinistic evolution is quite simply ludicrous. Speculative biologists and mathematicians that are antagonistic to Christianity are proclaiming that Darwinistic evolution is preposterous.
For a fully truthful answer, you must speak with a Rabbinical Scholar, because only they have the complete meaning of the Torah, because:
“…The original Torah scrolls were written without vowels, just as they are written today. However, just as the exact text of the Torah was given to Moses, so were the precise readings. These were preserved orally until they were finally put in writing.
It is for this reason that every word must be correctly pronounced when the Torah is read. There is a great deal of significance in the vowel signs used in the Torah….”
“…The key to understanding the Torah is the oral tradition handed down from the time of Moses and embodied in the Talmud and Midrash. However, even these traditions must be carefully studied, since they were often handed down word for word…”
“…There are times when the Torah speaks in allegory and metaphor. There are four conditions under which there is a tradition that the Torah is not to be taken according to its literal meaning:
Where the plain meaning is rejected by common experience.Where it is repudiated by obvious logic.Where it is contradicted by obvious scripture.Where it is opposed by clear Talmudic tradition.”
D Smith,
DNA evolved from RNA which existed in much smaller chunks. And RNA formed because chemical bonds and molecular attraction is not random as you imply, in this sense: Carbon (the basis of life) is tetravalent (has four electrons from which bonds are formed), and so it readily attracts hydrogen, oxygen, etc.
In fact, Carbon is so powerful in this regard that it can be built into Amino Acids in hours under certain conditions. Many lab experiments - from American to German to Japanese - have proven that these exact conditions are found in the chemically rich waters surrounding on ocean floor hydrothermal vents.
Once you have amino acids, the combine naturally into many combinations. This is also not a random event in the sense that a given molecule has naturally occurring chemical attractions to other kinds of molecules. Again, lab experiments have proven that given heat, amino acids can naturally form Guanine, one of the 4 bases that make up RNA and DNA.
So you see, we can look at directly at God’s Universe and understand Creation.
Good post, Tim.
I would say a couple quick things as someone who is wholly committed to the authority of Scripture, but sorting through the issue of evolution (there are many options, young earth creationists, old earth creationists, theistic evolution…which takes several forms), and at this point has come to a few conclusions but not a complete picture.
I go to a very conservative seminary in the US. And I have a professor, Dr. John C. Collins (also known as Jack…for those of you who are ESV buffs, he was the Old Testament editor), who has done a lot of research and study on this. I would recommend two books, Science & Evolution and Genesis 1-4.
I’m not 100 percent sure on this, but pretty close…Dr. Collins says from the text that death very well may have occurred in the garden before the fall. He might be right, he might be wrong. But he’s smarter than any of us here, and is a very well respected conservative evangelical theologian. So I would be hesitant to make bold statements in this realm.
Also, I would caution all of us of bashing the other side, specifically with using strong words, such as heresy. There is a place for strong bold statements, but we should be very humble and careful in our use.
Continue the discussion…I’m enjoying it.
#26 Justin,
Thanks for sharing! Let me recommend “The Language of God” by Francis Collins; it was very helpful to me in understanding the whole mess (Collins is biased in one very particular direction, but his critique of particular beliefs is the gentlest that I have found, and his explanation of particular evidence for evolution is very, very good.)
About death in the garden before the Fall— I’m still stumped by the question of what sharks, birds, lions, and tyrannosaurus rexes ate before the Fall if there was no physical death. And whether or not insects lived longer than a day…
If death was part of the “good” world God created, then will death also be part of the New Heavens and New Earth? If not, why not? If death was not a result of the fall then in what sense was the “creation subjected to futility” and “corruption” (Rom. 8:20, 21)? Furthermore, should we expect evolution to be part of the New Heavens and New Earth? Should we expect a better humanity through the process of evolution?
Tim,
This topic is a lightening rod for all who attempt to address it. We have an adult education class at church that is currently watching a series called: “The Great Debate” In this John Ankerberg TV series, there are two opposing camps. One representing the “Old Earth” interpretation of Genesis, and the other espouses a “Young Earth” interpretation. Drs. Walter Kaiser and Hugh Ross are OE believers while Ken Ham and Dr. Jason Lyle are the YE advocates. Some may recognize Dr. Ross (www.reasons.org) and Ken Ham (answersingenesis.org) as long term contenders on this issue.
We are about half way through the series now and I’m anxious to find out if Dr. Kaiser and Dr. Ross will ever address the following premise/question:
Premise: We as Christians, believe the bible to be the literal and infallible word of a Triune God, (our Creator). We ascribe to Him the full attributes of infinite power, infinite knowledge, and infinite goodness. In other words, not only does He have no reason or need to lie (even by omission), He is wholly incapable of issuing forth any untruth. It is simply against His very nature!
Question: If the “Old Earth” theory is fact, then why would God not give that scenario (at least in general terms) in the Genesis narrative? As stated earlier in this chain, it makes no difference to our complete awe of God’s power whether the literal time for creation was seconds, days, centuries, or eons. Considering that we believe that our Creator “created everything from nothing” and thereby He was the author of time itself, then why wouldn’t He simply just give us the OE explanation in Genesis?
Tim, Good luck on your presentation to your church. I would love to get an audio record of your sermon and the Q&A session afterward!
In Christ,
Dan…
Dan,Conversely, I have a question for those who take Genesis 1 in a less than literal way. If God did create the universe in 6 literal 24 hour periods of time and Genesis 1 does not indicate that he did, how best could God have communicated it if this scenario is correct? What necessary textual clues would be necessary to make this clear to the reader?
Matthew - Yes, The Language of God was one that I read a year ago, and it was quite good. But again, for me, it sort of fit into the, “well, this is good stuff, but I don’t know if I’m sold on everything category,” along with most every book I’ve read on evolution/creation thus far (yes, I know we could put nearly every good non-bible book into that category…but you get my point).
Justin #31,
Well, I’m glad you’ve read it, and that you’re thinking through the matter with sober reasoning and thought. I’ve noticed very few people on either side sit down with all the evidence, read different perspectives than their own, and try to carefully study the Scriptures… you are an example for us all!
R. Hampton
The answers you give lead me to believe that you are not a Christian. If you place more credibility on Orthodox Jewish scholars, rather than conservative Christian scholars, then the logical consequences would seem to be that you agree with them on things like “Jesus is not the messiah” etc…I would also conclude that you don’t believe there are any conservative scholars who can translate the O/T.
If these things are the case with you, then I am afraid this discussion isn’t worth while, seeing we come at the matters involved from different religious points of view.Don’t get me wrong, there is a time and a place for discussing who is correct between Orthodox Jews and Conservative Christianity. But that isn’t in a discussion about creation and evolution.By the way, you didn’t respond to my last post when I mentioned Ex. 20:8-11.
Tom ,
Jews did not write the New Testament because they were not there, but the early Christians were. So those who know the most about the events and meaning of the NT are Catholics. Likewise, Christians were not party to the oral traditions passed down from Moses to the Rabbis of today. So those who know the most about the events and meaning of the OT are Orthodox Jews.
As for myself — I am an honest and open to recieve God through his Creation, the universe. I will not close my eyes to the facts made plainly evident by this world of quarks, evolution and DNA. Christians have made that mistake repeatedly in the past — like the mistaken belief in an Earth centered universe disproven by Galileo (with help from Copernicus).
I aim to do better; to see God on his terms. So when it comes to God’s choice of Evolution, Gravity, Relativity, etc. I accept that his universe is itself Revelatory Truth.
Thanks for the blog post. While I agree with your reasoning concerning why the article stands in error, I was disappointed to read your opinions when they strayed from the article in question. In particular, it seems unclear to me that evolutionism (i.e. Darwinism) is excluded as an option for conservative Christians. The real battle is not at all between science and religion, but it is not between creationism and evolutionism either. The real battle is between theism and atheism. We need to take great care in reading Genesis through the lense of our own literary culture. How would an ancient near eastern reader have understood the text? Those who attempt to read and understand, (and sadly, explain) Genesis without really looking into this do a disservice to the text. Those who have spent time doing this are closer understanding the text. My hope is that Christians will spend more time ivestigating the text from a near eastern perspective than consuming endless hours talking about creation vs. evolution.
R. Hampton
Though I am tempted to write out a reply that answers your post, since you have not given me the courtesy to answer my post. I don’t think it would be fruitful for me to do so.May God reveal the truth to you.
Tim, if you are reading this thread, at least you know that your ministry is reaching more than just Christians. Keep up the good fight brother.
In ChristTom
Scott C asked:”Dan,Conversely, I have a question for those who take Genesis 1 in a less than literal way. If God did create the universe in 6 literal 24 hour periods of time and Genesis 1 does not indicate that he did, how best could God have communicated it if this scenario is correct? What necessary textual clues would be necessary to make this clear to the reader?”I am not Dan but I do take Genesis chapter one in a literal way.You’re saying that Genesis chapter one doesn’t indicate that God created in 6 literal 24 hour period. This just isn’t true, If you have followed my blog posts that I have had with R. Hampton, you would see that I answered that already. It has to do with the way the Hebrew word ‘Yom” (Day) is consistently used through out the OT when it is accompanied with a numeral. Also, I think it is important to know how Moses and his hearers understood the Genesis account. (Hint: Ex 20:8-11) Is it not also funny that the Jews continue to consider a “day” the period of time between sunset and sunrise (“And the evening and the morning were the first [second] [third], etc. day”). We see this clearly in the Gospel records concerning the burial and resurrection of Christ.Now I hope you are not like R. Hampton and ignore these things.
I am puzzled by arguments for an evolutionary explanation of things. Must everything be explained by a theory that is not so well established by evidence as many of its adherents like to claim.
My point is this: simply because evolutionary theory provides an adequate explanation for a lot of things, doesn’t mean the theory is true. I can provide an evolutionary explanation for everything if I am clever enough. I can do the same with any other philosophy though. Logical Christian explanations for the way the world works can be produced as well. But none of that proves that the theory is true.
This is the scientific fallacy of evolution. The use of evolutionary explanations for things as evidence.
Will #38,
Everything in science works like that— the best evidence is summarized and pieced together to fashion the most reasonable explanation of how things came to be or how they act. We do this with germ theory— no one has ever watched a vibrio cholerae cell give someone diarrhea, but we’ve put together a lot of evidence to say that it does, and no other reasonable explanation exists. We accept the way that modern science works in this regard in every other area— chemistry, medicine, physics, etc. Given the incredible amount of evidence for evolution and an old earth (visit talkorigins.org if you are unconvinced of this), it is reasonable to conclude certain things about evolution (like common descent and the age of the earth.) It is not reasonable to conclude other things about evolution (like the supposed “fact” that it somehow disproves God or negates the Bible.)
Of course there is no video camera that shows us how everything evolved. We’ve got our genomes, which have a number of inactivated genes, homologies between AREs, and peculiar traces of evolution like human chromosome #2. But it’s a pretty convincing explanation when you look at it, and nothing else comes close. The best explanation that I’ve found to explain all this says “God made it look that way to see who would really be faithful to His Word,” which is incredibly troubling theologically. (AiG and ICR have given very unsatisfactory answers to every question that I’ve looked at, and I can find Christian rebuttals of most of their major arguments.)
The evidence (genetic homology, the fossil record, observation of speciation and information increase, starlight & time, etc.) points to a rich evolutionary history. So either God made it that way, or He made it look like we evolved, such that even Bible-believing Christians, upon investigating the evidence, become convinced that evolution happened according to the modern scientific consensus.
Correction— the best young-earth explanation I’ve found to explain all this says…
-sorry.
Tom Hardy,You have misunderstood my question. I believe the plain meaning of Genesis 1 is clearly and unequivocally literalistic. However, those who espouse any number of figurative interpretations of the passage state that it can’t reasonably be understood as an actual historical account. I want to know what evidence such interpreters would deem necessary for the account to read as historical narrative. It is interesting that Walt Kaiser himself has written an important article supporting the fact that all of Genesis 1-11 has the classic earmarks of Hebrew historical narrative, yet he rejects a literal interpretation of the creation account.
Scott C
Sorry for the misunderstanding. I actually am glad I was only misunderstanding you and you were not supporting an evolutionary position.As to your latest post that clarified what you want to know. I don’t really know, but I do know that I have wrestled through this topic and only came to what I now believe through a lot of study and reading. I will also state that at one time I used to believe in the Old Earth model, while at the same time believing it to be consistent with the creation model. I guess if I could put my finger on why I believed that way, is because years ago a scientist from NASA preached on Genesis.Although he didn’t really deal with the Genesis one in detail, he did say that a thousand years is as a day and a day is as a thousand years to God (2 Peter 3:8). I now believe this is taking the verse out of its context to prove his point. This is why he could believe in an Old Earth. Looking back at what I remember of that sermon, it was more about supposed facts that science has discovered in order to back his Old Earth belief, rather than just letting Scripture interpreting Scripture.At that time I was not really aware that there was even an Old Earth vs. New Earth argument.
The claim that evolution is just another religion that has its own presuppositions and requires faith seems to undermine the faith of the one saying that. Implicit in the accusation is that the evolutionist is not justified in his belief. But what makes a creationist’s belief so much more justified? It can’t be the physical evidence the evolutionist is looking at, because one would have to be blind to not side with the evolutionist. But if you were to claim that it wasn’t the evidence, that it takes faith to believe in evolution, then all that does is place evolution and creationism on the same playing field. It says nothing about the “truth” of creationism. If you say evolution is based on certain presuppositions, specifically that God does not exist, then it makes evolution equal with creationism which is based on the presupposition that God does exist. There is no claim of value to one over another.
Scott C. #41,
You ask what textual clues it would take in Genesis to have a convincing, young-earth account. I would say that it would be more convincing if Genesis 2 didn’t put forth a different order of creation than Genesis 1. Also, the text is in a highly poetic, parallelistic structure that is associated more with poetic myth than just-the-facts-ma’am history. If it read more like, say, Genesis 12-50, it would certainly make more sense to read it literally.
Certainly, there are a number of other indicators that lead scholars to lean towards the framework hypothesis that you can find in Kline, Waltke, etc.
JamesIf we are talking strictly “science” then it is true that both evolutionism and creationism are based on presupositions.Seeing that the Bible states that only a fool says there is no God and that God is the only one who can ultimately change a persons heart. I will let the Bible speak for itself.
Tom, I did answer you question RE:Ex 20:8-11 (see comment #24).
If you really want to know why Jews understand Genesis as an allegory, then you must speak with a Rabbinical Scholar. They have special knowledge outside of the Christian OT that exists because of oral tradition. The Jews know the Truth of the OT because they received theTorah (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, & Deuteronomy) from Moses, and have passed it down through the ages. They can explain to you exactly the meaning of every passage that they have protected for 3,000 years.
Matthew,Are you saying saying that Genesis 1-11 is not historical narrative, but poetic mythic literature? If not, at what point in Genesis 1-11 do we start to encounter historic narrative?
#47 Scott C,
The two are not necessarily mutually exclusive. “Historical narrative” as understood by the ancient Hebrews doesn’t exactly correlate with what we would think of as historical narrative, and certainly elements of poetic mythic literature abound in Genesis 1-11 far more than in 12-50. Theistic evolutionists disagree quite a bit on how to interpret Genesis 1-11; I would say that Genesis 1 definitely leans more on the poetic, figurative side while 2-11 are more “historical.” But especially considering the similarities we see in other ANE literature and the scholarly consensus that Genesis didn’t reach the complete form that we have now until roughly the 5th century BC, it’s important to take seriously the fact that Genesis 1-11 is a distinct literary unit within the book and that carries with it different interpretative challenges. Especially chapter 1, because of the way that it is cast in such a poetic framework.
R. Hampton said:
“Tom, I did answer you question RE:Ex 20:8-11 (see comment #24).
If you really want to know why Jews understand Genesis as an allegory, then you must speak with a Rabbinical Scholar. They have special knowledge outside of the Christian OT that exists because of oral tradition. The Jews know the Truth of the OT because they received theTorah (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, & Deuteronomy) from Moses, and have passed it down through the ages. They can explain to you exactly the meaning of every passage that they have protected for 3,000 years.”—————————————————————————————————Actually even comment #24 doesn’t answer my question about Ex. 20:8-11. All you did was talk about oral tradition.
Answer me this one, if the Jews are the only ones that truly can understand the Old Testament. Then why is it that they don’t believe that Jesus is the Messiah?
Do you think they are correct?
Matthew,How do you explain the toledot structure in Genesis 1-11? What is it’s function? In particular, how does Gen. 2:4 fit into this structure?