- RSS FeedSubscribe
- « Previous PostA La Carte (8/2)
- Next Post »A La Carte (8/3)
Wrestling with Evolution
- 08/02/07
- 92
Christians are accustomed to treating evolution as an account of the world’s origins that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever and something that a person could only believe in the absence of God or in the absence of faith. But this is not quite fair. There are now many Christians—Christians who treasure the Bible and who affirm the truths of the historic Christian faith—who do believe that the evidence for evolution is too compelling to ignore. It is telling that, as far as I can see, the vast majority of Christian scientists (not to be confused with Christian Scientists) hold to evolution. In the face of modern science, those of us who still cling to a literal six day creation may seem to be increasingly stubborn and outdated. Certainly the world perceives us this way. So, too, today, do many in the church. There is very real pressure to conform.
The stakes are high. As Christians we believe that God is honored when we honor the truth. Hence if God did not create the world from nothing in six literal days, we dishonor God by clinging tightly, even in the face of evidence, to a view that is wrong. Of course the opposite is also true. If God did create the world in six days, we dishonor Him by believing in evolution. Only one view can be right.
In his book The Language of God, Francis Collins, who identifies himself in the book as an evangelical Christian, neatly divides the realm of science and the realm of faith. Faith is given to answer ultimate questions about meaning and purpose where science is God’s way of speaking about the physical world. He sees a complete harmony between them. Collins says there are four options when we consider possible responses to the interaction of the theory of evolution and belief in God.
The first is atheism and agnosticism which he describes as science trumping faith. In this view people place their ultimate trust in science and have little to offer when it comes to ultimate questions about meaning and purpose.
The second is Creationism and he describes this as faith trumping science. He says that if the views of creationists are true, “it would lead to a complete and irreversible collapse of the sciences of physics, chemistry, cosmology, geology and biology.” “Ultra-literal” interpretations of Genesis are wrong and must be adapted to fit with what science tells us. Collins makes no distinction between “old earth” and “young earth” Creationists. There are, after all, some Christians (and though I am not among them I do have some sympathy for their beliefs) who would hold to something a little bit different than a six day creation, believing that God has created ex nihilo (i.e. out of nothing) and that He has been doing so progressively over millions or billions of years. He created man ex nihilo 6,000 or 10,000 years ago almost as described by a literal reading of the first few chapters of Genesis. Collins does not distinguish because he feels evolution is simply to clear to ignore and whether we believe in an old earth or a young earth, to ignore evolution is folly. Evolution and divine non-intervention are the keys, not the age of the earth.
The third option is Intelligent Design, which tries to find harmony but which does so only by looking for areas science cannot explain. As science progresses it inevitably finds a way to explain these gaps, thus keeping Intelligent Design advocates always scrambling and always on the defensive. While I enjoy reading of the world of these people, I find Intelligent Design an unsatisfying explanation for reasons I may discuss at another time.
The final option is theistic evolution or what Collins prefers to call “BioLogos.” This is the view he holds to and the view of an increasing number of Christians. This belief rests of the following premises:
- The universe came into being out of nothingness, approximately 14 billion years ago.
- Despite massive improbabilities, the properties of the universe appear to have been precisely tuned for life.
- While the precise mechanism of the origin of life on earth remains unknown, once life arose, the process of evolution and natural selection permitted the development of biological diversity and complexity over very long periods of time. Collins seems to hold that life arose naturally (or at least that it could have arisen naturally) and not through supernatural intervention.
- Once evolution got under way no special supernatural intervention was required.
- Humans are part of this process, sharing a common ancestor with the great apes.
- But humans are also unique in ways that defy evolutionary explanation and point to our spiritual nature. This includes the existence of the Moral Law (the knowledge of right and wrong) and the search for God that characterizes all human cultures throughout history.
I think these six points accurately summarize what most theistic evolutionists believe. I don’t have an exhaustive list of Christians who are theistic evolutionists, though some of the names I’ve heard are a bit surprising to me. But as I said at the outset, the names do include many Bible-believing Christians.
As for me, I am still an old-fashioned, out-dated, six day Creationist. My reasoning is simple: I believe we have to give the position of supremacy to the Bible. While I certainly admit that the Bible is not meant to be a scientific textbook, if we affirm its inerrancy we need to believe that where it does comment on science, it does so truthfully. Thus, until it can be proven to me otherwise, the creation of the world, as outlined in the Bible, is meant to be read literally and accepted as fact. Further, the creation of the world is not merely a scientific question but also a theological one, so it is not something we can consign entirely into the realm of science. Thus we have to arrive at a solution that is consistent with both science and Scripture, all the while knowing that we are imperfect and our eyes are clouded by our limitations. Where science and Scripture clearly disagree, we must hold fast to God’s Word. And to this point that is where my conscience has directed me.
There are several areas where I feel theistic evolutionists allow science to trump Scripture and I’d like to point out just four of them. Francis Collins is certainly no theologian and, unfortunately, does not address these in his book. I really would be glad to receive recommendations for a book written by a conservative Christian explaining how we can reconcile science with Scripture in these points and others.
First, if we decide that the biblical account of creation is simple allegory or a metaphorical description of what actually took place, how are we to determine where allegory ends and reality begins? If the description of the creation of the world is either just a vague metaphor for what actually happened or perhaps some kind of allegory, where do we determine that historical narrative actually begins? Certainly we cannot read much into the fact of God resting on the seventh day. We have to see that God did not create Adam from the dust of the ground and did not form Eve from Adam’s rib (putting to rest the age-old controversy of whether or not they had belly buttons). Was there a literal tree of life and tree of the knowledge of good and evil or were these, too, mere metaphor? Did God really create Eve specifically to be Adam’s helper or did woman arise by the process of evolution? Were gender roles part of God’s creation or did they arise only through natural selection? Was there a serpent who tempted Adam and Eve? Did they really eat fruit God told them not to eat? Was there a real Garden of Eden? Did Adam and Eve really get banished from it? Was there really a flaming sword to guard the way to the tree of life? Did God really create Adam and Eve clothes (foreshadowing the death of Christ in the death of the animal He used to cover them) to cover their nakedness? And finally, do we not see throughout the Bible that the other authors seem to understand the Biblical account of creation in a very literal way? It seems to me that the metaphorical reading of the first few chapters of Genesis if fraught with peril. This, in itself, is not a sound argument as much as it is a caution. Those who hold to theistic evolution tread upon portions of the Bible that are absolutely foundational to our faith.
While I will admit that this next argument, an extension from the last, may fall into the realm of fallacy, I will state it anyways. Is there not a danger in handing someone a Bible and saying, “It is important to note that the first three chapters you read really aren’t meant to be taken literally!”? Does it seem likely that God would give us His description of the world’s origins in a way that, by most measures, seems to be meant literally, when in reality it is merely figurative? What are the wider implications of reading these early chapters in a way that is less than literal?
Second, the Bible tells us that Adam, as the first man, stands as our federal head. He represented us before God in such a way that when he fell into sin, so did we. The Bible makes it clear that this position was assigned by virtue of Adam’s position as the first man. If we hold to evolution we have no way of knowing if, how or why Adam is our federal head. Was he perhaps the first person who was truly a sentient being? Was he the first person to whom the moral law was given? Did God somehow intervene in his life to give him something that made him human while the rest of the species went on as animals? We are forced to believe that God somehow chose Adam out of the mass of humanity (or near humanity) and conferred on him a special privilege. While this is something God is known to do (think of Abraham as an example) this is certainly not clear from the Bible. In fact, I don’t know that anyone would have thought of this until evolution began to make us rethink Genesis. We would also do well to consider the implications to the federal headship of Christ, the Second Adam.
Third, how did the fall into sin actually happen? I touched on this in the first point, but if we believe in evolution, it is difficult to then believe that the story of man’s fall into sin happened exactly as the Bible describes it. And so I ask, how did sin come into the world? And how can we explain its pervasiveness?
And finally, was there death before Adam? Romans 5:12 says that death entered the world through the sin of Adam. “Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned…” Yet evolution is impossible without death (and without death being an agent of good, rather than evil, for death causes the stronger to supplant the weaker, driving the innately beneficial process of natural selection). So did death really enter the world through Adam or was there death already? And is death a curse, as the Bible says, or is death also a good and necessary force that causes the stronger to survive?
I have found these four questions (or series of questions) impossible to reconcile with Darwinian evolution. Thus I have to give supremacy to the Bible. Am I asking you to answer these questions? Not necessarily, though if you have answers or can refer me to a place that they’ve been answered satisfactorily I would be interested in the learning experience. In the meanwhile, I’m content to continue believing that God created the world, from nothing, in six days, and that He did so not too long ago. My understanding of Scripture and my love for it just doesn’t allow me any other option.
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 (92)
Hey Tim,Great post - thanks for this. I’d recommend to you Vern Poythress’ recent book by Crossway called “Redeeming Science.” Very, very good. I’d be interested in your thoughts re: the analogical day theory that Poythress advocates.
Tim, that was the best summary of my beliefs that I have ever come across. You have handled this topic in a very Christian matter (and I mean that as a compliment, of course!). I look forward to any other thoughts you have.
One point that you didn’t mention that has kept me from being a theistic evolutionist is this—If evolution is true, and God “guided” evolution along, then what we see is God failing to create a creature that He can have a personal relationship with. Sure, He might be helping the process, but He still needs to wait billions of years in order for man to exist. I cannot acknowledge a “God” who fails.
The problem with saying Atheist use science is that they ignore part of science that does not make sense. As a student of physics, I feel evolution is impossible in that one species can evolve to another. Survival of the fittest however is scientifically sound and has been shown over time. Laws such as the Law of entropy are easily ignored by evolutionist in their blind devotion to their cause, to disprove the Bible & God.
I was not there when the Earth came into being but I see it happening one of two ways. God created it out of nothing and did the same for the living species or God caused disorder to become order thus evolving the species. Either way, they both fit within scientific laws and boundaries. It just requires faith to believe that there actually could be a God.
I tend to believe in creation because that is what was said and I take the Bible literal but who am I to condemn something I can not disprove.
The problem with saying Atheist use science is that they ignore part of science that does not make sense. As a student of physics, I feel evolution is impossible in that one species would not evolve to another. Survival of the fittest however is scientifically sound and has been shown over time. Laws such as the Law of entropy are easily ignored by atheist evolutionist in their blind devotion to their cause, to disprove the Bible & God.
I was not there when the Earth came into being but I see it happening one of two ways. God created it out of nothing and did the same for the living species or God caused disorder to become order thus evolving the species. Either way, they both fit within scientific laws and boundaries. It just requires faith to believe that there actually could be a God.
I tend to believe in creation because that is what was said and I take the Bible literal but who am I to condemn something I can not disprove.
Thanks for this post, Tim. It is a generous, fair-minded appraisal. I’ve been tracking with this conversation a lot recently as well.
You mention “I don’t have an exhaustive list of Christians who are theistic evolutionists, though some of the names I’ve heard are a bit surprising to me.”
Would you mind sharing this list with me? I’ve been trying to track with Christians talking about science and faith (from all over the spectrum), at http://zoecarnate.com/#scifaith
Thanks!
I personally haven’t met any theistic evolutionists, but a college-aged friend of mine, encountered them at Au Sable Institute of Enviromental Studies in Michigan. Her literal view of Creation and Genesis was mocked to her face. She was only taking a summer course with the school and was not aware of this prevalent view. Needless to say, her views of what Christians believe were expanded that summer.A conference on these topics is taking place this weekend in Scotland with Alister McGrath as the Keynote speaker.Here is a link for the conference brochure:http://www.asa3.org/asa/meetings/Edinburgh2007/Edinburgh_brochure.pdf
The listed seminar topics seem quite interesting.
Thanks Tim for this thorough review and comment on this book, and on all the view exposed. Thanks for the emphasis on what’s the authority between science and the Bible. One is evolving (or at least our knowledge and comprehension of it), while the other is the same through the ages, and from the omniscience of God.The answer is simple, thanks for pointing it out.
I’m still waiting to hear the evidence for evolution that is just “too compelling to ignore”. I know there are plenty of evidences for an old earth, but that doesn’t mean there are evidences for evolution. Where are the transitory species in the fossil record? Where is this compelling evidence for one species becoming a completely new species?!
Romans 1 speaks very well to the secular scientist’s reason for believing evolution. I think many Christian scientists feel pressured to believe evolution because they will be shunned otherwise, not because of compelling evidences.
Juice
“Would you mind sharing this list with me? I’ve been trying to track with Christians talking about science and faith”
I didn’t do so because some of them I’ve been told but without any real proof. However, Alister McGrath, Tony Compolo, Desmund Tutu and Robert Schuller all endorsed the book and are all Christian (or “Christian”) leaders. I suppose and endorsement does not necessarily imply complete agreement, but with a topic this contentious it could probably be taken that way.
Biochemistry of proteins and DNA from various species clearly shows the manner in which the evolution of these molecules has occurred over very long periods of time. While the involvement of God in the process of evolution is possible, it just does not fit the facts to say the world and all the animals and plants were made in 6 literal days. It is a lot more difficult to choose to ignore a vast amount of scientific data than it is to square the Bible with the scientific facts. I have recently also been reading Collins’ book but have not finished it yet. I will get back to you when I do.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolutiongives a list of contemporary advocates of theistic evolution.
God bless you Tim. As I see it, a denial of your stated position, in any way, is a denial of the gospel of Christ. If I didn’t spiritually die in a man called Adam, who was created on the 6th day, then the word of God is broken, and the whole lot is a sham. If ALL scripture isn’t profitable, (2 Tim 3:16) then none of it is!
Tim,
Justin Taylor had a post relating to this a few weeks ago: http://theologica.blogspot.com/2007/07/origins.html I think you’re right to have trouble with theistic evolution. The biggest problem I see with it is how to account for the uniqueness of humanity. But, I also don’t think a literal 6 days works either. I like what Justin presents via Waltke.
Regarding death though, my understanding is that the death that entered the world through one man was spiritual death. I don’t see any reason why scripture would require the abscence of physical death pre-fall. There is a Christian assumption that if there had been no fall, Adam and Eve would have lived perpetually. What if they had slipped on a mountain and fallen off a cliff? Just because it didn’t happen doesn’t mean it couldn’t have. We are not told either way. (I know that’s kind of lame example, but the point is that I don’t think there’s good evidence to believe there was no death pre-fall.)
I think many Christian scientists feel pressured to believe evolution because they will be shunned otherwise, not because of compelling evidences.
I feel that there should be more humility on the part of non-scientist Christians who have chosen the 6 day creation. Those who are older do not worry about being shunned, their beliefs are not moderated by their fear of social exclusion, they are past that. They arrive at the place where they don’t need to prop up their belief in God with other corollaries.
For example, Bruce Waltke has been a conservative Hebrew scholar his entire life. He has stood up to the liberals for a lifetime. However, he willingly admits that he believes in theistic evolution.
People need a faith that goes beyond having a belief that lines up with their own finite mind 100% of the time.
“What if they had slipped on a mountain and fallen off a cliff? Just because it didn’t happen doesn’t mean it couldn’t have. ”
Couldn’t the same then happen in eternity? Will I plummet to my death when I attempt to climb Mt. Everest?
Thanks for the article!
You cede that evolutionists of all beliefs use science. However, as Answers in Genesis and many other resources point out, the “science” that the evolutionary theory is based on is bogus. There is no reason to even grant that evolutionists have a real scientific basis for their claims.
Mr. Collins claims that a rejection of evolution and secular humanisn would cause the collapse of science. This a a rediculous statement. Evolution is based on several theories. If they were to be accepted as false, things would shift dramatically, but science would not be harmed. Theories are intended to be challenged. Science claims to be trying to find accurate knowledge, so if the foundations are broken, they should be replaced.
Thanks Tim for this post. I am also a literal 6-day, old fashioned creationist. My wife and I have come to the conclusion that if “macro” evolution were true, when we stand before God we want to say, “We took your Word for truth,” rather than the opposite.
Great review and article Tim, I look forward to picking up the book.
Would you mind sharing this list with me? I’ve been trying to track with Christians talking about science and faith
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolutiongives a list of contemporary advocates of theistic evolution.
Another interesting addition (that I didn’t see on that wiki page) is John Polkinghorne.
Jesus was not a theistic evolutionist, and he knew all things - in fact, sustained and still sustains the universe by the word of his power:
http://www.boundlessline.org/2007/06/jesus_was_not_a.html
I just finished reading John MacArthur’s book Battle for the Beginning, very helpful and recommended.
BB, nitpicky comment to your comment. I suspect you used “feel” simply because many do these days, but it’s not correct. You stated “… I feel evolution is impossible…”.
However, I doubt your feelings had very little to do with with your conclusions, at least I hope not! Christians, of all people, are those who who consider objective truth ( the Bible being the highest standard ) and think, drawing logical conclusions from the facts at their disposal. How I “feel” about anything is largely immaterial.
Best commentary on this subject, and best discussion of many (all?) of the theological points brought up in the post is Waltke’s commentary on Genesis. (At least it’s the best that I’ve encountered.)
http://www.amazon.ca/Genesis-Commentary-Bruce-K-Waltke/dp/0310224586
I’m a biologist and a Christian, and as such have had to wrestle with this for many years. My wife, who used to be a young earther (for many of the reasons brought up in the post) was the one who came across Waltke’s book, and she was convinced by his arguments.
My one contribution to this discussion is this:
-Theistis evolution (to take the label) does not imply a watchmaker God at all. In fact, it implies a continually active God, active in His Creation from the first moment until now. Naturalistic science is a useful tool for figuring out how things work, but, since it is inherently materialistic and naturalistic, it cannot detect the nonmaterial supernatural. It can only detect effects in the natural realm.
Theistic evolutionists (often) believe that God IS at work, but that science cannot actually detect God. I would go so far as to say that God is at work in the gravity holding you to your chair right now, but having faith is one thing. Detecting God by studying gravity is another. The latter won’t work. God can only be revealed to those whom He choses to reveal Himself.
To some extent, actually, young earth creationists, who generally believe in a very static Creation, are the ones who can be considered to be believing in a watchmaker God. If God created things only a few thousand years ago, and if things have basically not changed since, then, as far as Creation is concerned, God might as well have wound it up and walked away.
Theistic evolution, on the other hand, sees a dynamic Creation in which God is still (though not detectable by scientific means) at work.
I would like to make one comment about the fossil record that JUICE brought up earlier. We have all been reading AIG and Ken Ham for a long time now, and although there is a lot of compelling evidence there regarding difficulties in evolutionary theory, the fossil record should be considered inconclusive at best for the time being.
If you watch the YouTube video showing a lecture by Kenneth Miller (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg) you will note that he correctly states that there are so many transitional fossils that scientists do not not know what to make of it. That is in stark contrast to what we have heard for so many years about the “missing” links in the fossil record.
I guess that I just wanted to say that there is fact-checking that needs to be done on all sides, the exception being the Bible. Just a thought.
I took a classes on the philosophy of science and intelligent design in college. It was very interesting taking the latter class in light of what I learned in the former. Philosophically speaking, there is no consensus as to what exactly a good scientific theory is. Is it something we can verify? Something we can falsify? When and where does scientific knowledge end? When and where does “non-scientific” knowledge begin?
As a Christian, I am forced to conclude that if all truth is God’s truth, then there is really only one truth, and the Bible is the only inerrant source of God’s truth that I know of. Additionally, I think Christians, especially those in the academy, fail to realize that sin affects our whole being, including our intellect and rationality. Just as our senses aren’t completely reliable, so too with our rational endeavours. Kierkegaard posed the question as to whether it was better to base one’s beliefs on something empirically or historically falsifiable or on faith. Faith was the only place in which he found he could be absolutely certain of his beliefs, because faith built on history or science is always subject to revision.
Randy,Transitional or separate species? Scientists often find a fossil that doesn’t belong to a known species, and they say it is transitional (there is a lot of money to be made in finding these, after all). Also, are these transitions partially formed as we would expect to find as a result of random genetic mutations? Irreducible complexity is a strong argument to take into account before saying something is transitional (Darwin himself admitted that it would undo his whole theory).We all have beginning assumptions about the evidence. So all of this “compelling evidence” is also subject to much interpretation before conclusions are found, so we need to filter them based on who drew them.
Randy,
No offense, but this…
“…he correctly states that there are so many transitional fossils that scientists do not not know what to make of it.”
…seems silly. If there were indeed so many - then every museum in America would have them lined up - showing how one species - like a fish - grew legs/learned to breath air/etc - and evolved into another species like a monkey. As it is - no such thing exists. Perhaps Scott is asking a better question, but I would like to know how it is that scientists have so many transitional fossils - yet we don’t see this in the museums? Would you not agree that if such things existed we would see them in museums? Clearly showing how one species turned into another one? It’s not there.
“Clearly showing how one species turned into another one? It’s not there.”
I’d tend to agree with David. Collins says in his book that Creationists are wrong to say that we have no evidence of intermediary species, but he doesn’t then defend himself. The museums are certainly not filled with fossils that show species in transition. I understand this to mean that they really haven’t found convincing examples.
BB said:
“The problem with saying Atheist use science is that they ignore part of science that does not make sense.”
Wrong. It is the creationist that rejects evidence that doesn’t fit their world view.
BB said” As a student of physics, I feel evolution is impossible in that one species would not evolve to another. Survival of the fittest however is scientifically sound and has been shown over time. Laws such as the Law of entropy are easily ignored by atheist evolutionist in their blind devotion to their cause, to disprove the Bible & God.”
You should pay more attention in class
BB said:”I was not there when the Earth came into being…”
Nobody was
BB said:
“I tend to believe in creation because that is what was said and I take the Bible literal but who am I to condemn something I can not disprove.”
Or prove it for that matter
BB said:
“The problem with saying Atheist use science is that they ignore part of science that does not make sense.”
Wrong. It is the creationist that rejects evidence that doesn’t fit their world view.
BB said” As a student of physics, I feel evolution is impossible in that one species would not evolve to another. Survival of the fittest however is scientifically sound and has been shown over time. Laws such as the Law of entropy are easily ignored by atheist evolutionist in their blind devotion to their cause, to disprove the Bible & God.”
You should pay more attention in class
BB said:”I was not there when the Earth came into being…”
Nobody was
BB said:
“I tend to believe in creation because that is what was said and I take the Bible literal but who am I to condemn something I can not disprove.”
Or prove it for that matter
Tim:Another brilliant and thought provoking post. Please keep them coming!
A minor comment:Who’s the judge?…For those who have a mindset that rejects a supernatural creation of the universe, the Bible would not be a foundational nor an authorative source for issues regarding the formulation of the universe. For those who have a mindset that accepts the Biblical account of creation, evolutionary theory would likewise be rejected.
However….there are two truths… which are the truth of God’s inspired Word and the truth ofHis created world. These truths are not in conflict. Due to the effects of the fall of man in the Garden of Eden upon creation, we are looking at an altered landscape which must be seen through the lens of God’s written Word. But the majority of those living today would not agree with this statement.
@Randy et al,I found this interesting in light of the Kenneth Miller citations.
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?id=389
Tim, thank you for the post. I’ve been thinking about the whole issue regarding evolution and creationism for awhile, particularly because I work for an institution that supports evolution. I have a few comments and a few questions open to anyone who cares to answer.
First - have you or anyone in this discussion thread read The Genesis Debate: Three Views on the Days of Creation edited by Norman Geisler? One of the views in there is called the Framework View which basically says that Genesis Chapter 1 is a poem. I won’t go into the details of the view (check wikipedia), but it seems to me to make sense, but I will wait til I’ve done more indepth study.
Second - regarding the issue of death, as noted above Romans states that man brought death into the world by Adam’s sin. Is the death Adam brought, the death of humans, or of all creation? This is why I ask: In Genesis 2:16-17 God tells Adam that if he eats of the tree of knowledge of good and evil he will die. If that was the only mention of death til Adam and Eve ate of the tree, then I wouldn’t be asking this question. If God tells us not to do something, we don’t have to understand it, we just need to obey. However, this is not the only mention of death before the Fall. Satan and Eve have a conversation in Genesis 3:1-5 in which Satan challenges God’s command and tells Eve that she will not die. Here are two non-deities having a discussion regarding death and seeming to understand what it means. So, my big question is, did death exist for animals and plants before the Fall such that Eve and Adam understood what death was?
Any thought on this will be much appreciated.
Jamie
Good post Tim. I think you presented all sides fairly, but I am glad to read that you’re still a literal six-day creationist!
Hi Tim,You said: I really would be glad to receive recommendations for a book written by a conservative Christian explaining how we can reconcile science with Scripture in these points and others... but man, you asked a lot of questions … I see you aren’t a literalist when it comes to numbers :-). Frankly, I’m not sure any of us that grapple with the implications of God’s evolving creation have really good answers to all those questions. My recommendation as a start would be Denis Lamoureux’s web essay “Evolutionary Creation” at: http://www.ualberta.ca/~dlamoure/3EvoCr.htm. thanks,
@Jaime;If Adam or Eve had seen things die and begin decomposing, or even get scavanged, do you think they would have been so easily deceived? I think the concept of death to them was completely theoretical, therefore subject to the spin of the devil.
I recently asked a science professor who holds to some form of theistic evolution how he accounts for the biblical teaching on Adam and Eve. He stated that science holds to an original human couple, and that theistic evolutionists have no problem talking about an original human couple like Adam and Eve.
Regardless of the science (and the science is important), the key for me is determining the authorial intent and genre of the creation account. Everything else flows from that. I tend to follow Waltke on this. I heard D.A. Carson speak on this and he hinted that he may not hold the party line, although he was clear he didn’t want to get into it at the time. I’d love to hear him explain this more.
Thoughtful post as usual, Tim.
I am curious (and posing an argument, I’ll admit). To the theistic evolutionists in this thread, do you believe in all the miracles performed by God in the Bible? Do you accept that the first born of Egypt were struck down, the sun stood still, that Christ walked on water, and Lazarus physically rose from the dead?
If you accept all these things, then why can you not accept the account of Genesis as being literal?
Jacob:
As someone who isn’t a young earth, 24-hour day creationist, I accept the miracles of the Bible.
Why question the young earth and the 6-day 24-hour creation interpretation? Two reasons: clues within the text that it is not meant to be read that way, and scientific evidence that seems to indicate otherwise. Can’t speak for everyone though.
Do you think that Christians pointing out the perceived conflicts between science and the Bible is conducive to gospel preaching? Sometimes I wonder if we portray evolution to be a hurdle that my unbelieving friends must overcome in order to be true followers of Jesus. Perhaps it’s just a distraction? I’m no scientist and I don’t pretend to be. I don’t really care how the world was created, I can leave that to the scientists. I do know the Bible tells me who created it and the consequences of rejecting his rightful rule, and I want to talk to my friends about that, not about natural selection or fossil records.
David,
I agree with you, and so did Gould, who indicated that the trade secret of Paleontology was the notable lack of transitional forms. Although, Randy, I am unfamiliar with the Miller piece so I will have to check it out. Perhaps Kenneth discovered many million somethings new in the last few years since Gould’s passing. Thanks!
Additionally, the proposed transition of forms is perpetually being rehabilitated. For instance when we see the time line from Eohippus (small horse, post dog) to Equus (our horse), what is ignored is that this is an externally applied path, and in reality geological layers can and do contain multiple forms at the same time. And what is also ignored is the “Cambrian Explosion” in which over 50 different Phyla appeared suddenly in the strata and from no forms that were even remotely transitional. We now have 20 Phyla or which means that we now have much less diversity (millions and millions of fewer species)as far as body type goes.
The existence of similarity of form does not have to bear the externally supplied presumption of upward mobility, especially when supposedly ancestoral creatures coexisted with their purported progenerate.
I also disagree with Tracy, in that, it is only similarity in form and comparative simplicity of structure that leads to an a priori decision of evolution. Presumably, creatures that breath O2, need water, and utilize the finite variations on fats, proteins, and carbohydrates would be greatly similar genetically. Again, it is only a presumption, to look at these things and believe that they are whispering “upwardly mobile”. If anything the miserable frailty of DNA and and the mind blowing specificity of biochemistry scream the involvement of God.
Lastly, (no really) Exodus 20:11 is the deal breaker for me. If one is going to buy into the word of God at all then words in the word need to mean something. If “day” for the Sabbath references the seventh day, but the days are really long or heavenly or immaterial to our coconut heads then the fourth commandment was meaningless and pointless.
Like Tim said, if everything tangible in the bible is just metaphor, then where do you stop?
Ususally with the things that bother you.
And maybe that’s the point.
Jason
Our Lord God has become even more awesome to me through my understanding of science. But just as the Psalmists and Prophets could not have fully appreciated the fullness of the Christ to come, they DID get tastes of that hope that bolstered their faith.
Likewise, we have yet to see the fullness of science’s disclosures to the stupendicity (my worship of God continually demands neologisms) of YHWH!
To speak with absolutism against the evolution of science (yes that the proper word order) is being a bit of a “flat earther”.
Just because the sciences still flounder to give meaning to life, we should not flounder by trying to make the Bible the ONLY science text book. There are several good resources recommended here that deserve a thoughtful read as counter point to your conclusions. The problem with general categorizations of thought and persons is that they leave little room to mix it up. I am a-political for the same reason. I don’t’ like one group of anything telling me everything I should think.
For instance we all use phenomenological language even in our enlightened age. The sun still rises even though we understand we rotated. We are often debating gnats on needles (nonsense).
That we now speak of millions of years and billions of stars and a never before seen nano-verse only better impresses upon us the timelessness and limitlessness of YHWH as reflected in His name above all names.
That certain unimaginative scientific types would doubt the veracity of the Bible and miracles is not surprising. That we have not become even more beside ourselves in amazement as science impresses us with the uniqueness of our existence, that the miracles (with the pinnacles being salvation and resurrection) really happened, and that our faith (and the Love of Christ) has NOT rattled into oblivion by the revelations of science, IS the true shame!
Oh…thanks for letting us know about Dr. Nettles ills. I had just reconnected with him last week after almost 30 years, and he didn’t even mention he was under the weather…rascal rabbit!
…and also thanks for the link to Dr. Pipers blog on the bridge collapse…that was a very poignant recounting of his family moments. Oh, that we would all be so wise and well spoken in the face of unimaginable tragedy in our backyards. Our prayers are with the Twin Cities.
Sorry,somehow this didn’t come out my finger tips properly:
…that the miracles (with the pinnacles being salvation and resurrection) really happened..
should have been, “just how miraculous the miracles of salvation and resurrection really are”
@{Scott, David, Tim},
Allow myself to perhaps be more clear and respond. First, I am still a literal, 6-day, young earther. As a grad student with all kinds of “scientists” around me all day long, I know that “facts” are interpretable to be less than facts depending on which professor’s office you are in.
@Scott, I think that I was trying to say what you are saying. Answers in Genesis says one thing, a different community says another. We need to filter each of those camps. I am trying to say is that the fossil record seems like a weak argument for the creation side, and may not be correct, so it should be considered inconclusive, as the evolutionists have considered it. Looking back, perhaps it would have been more prudent to leave the “correctly” out of the statement about Kenneth Miller. I don’t have any allegiances to him. Good point about separate vs. transitional. That passed my mind without stopping for thought.
@David. I don’t expect to see all of these fossils in secular museums. As far as I know, scientists don’t know what the “transitionals” are. If they can’t draw conclusions about their speciation or evolutionary descent, they can’t publish. If they can’t publish, they can’t get grants. If they can’t get grants, they don’t have a job. All they can and do say is “We need more money to look into this further.” Scott is 100% correct about the money issue. Also, it seems more like an embarrassment to place it in a museum display and say, “We have absolutely no idea what that strange looking thing really is!” Today’s scientific community will do anything to prolong grants and squash possible embarrassment.
I would however expect to see it in the creation museum. What would be a better nail in the coffin? Does the new museum in Kentucky have any, or do they consider them all separate, previously unclassified species? According to Tim and Collins (who seems to agree with me), but doesn’t defend it, there should be no reason to see them there either, since they do not exist. Wouldn’t it be funny to walk up to the “transitional” fossils exhibit and see an empty display case?
Sadly, your points just don’t take account of the most Biblical of the Old Earth Creation (as I prefer to call it) views, which is roughly outlined by John Stott in his commentary on Romans when discussing the federal headship of Christ.
Adam can be a literal historical figure; death in Romans 4 only refers to human death (as implied by “and then death came to all because all sinned”); the transition between non-human and human is defined by divine revelation to Adam who is then the first man; Genesis 1 is pretty much literal but a broader range is allowed for the word “yom” than the English “day” permits.
If you are arguing against a position, you need to address the strongest case.
There is no need for Science or Creationism, the two work very well together without compromise.I would highly recommend the Answers In Genesis web site where you will find a huge library of work by scientists from all disciplines and not only are many of them PhD’s, but there are some who are recognised leaders in their fields.
Custard - when Yom is linked with a number and/or the designation ‘Morning, evening’ etc in Hebrew it always means a literal 24 hour day without exception.
Tim, thanks for this. It is important to remember this isn’t a primary issue - you can still be a Christian and not be a 6 day young earther, and it is always tragic when people have nasty arguments over this. But I agree, it leaves more questions that it answers and I share your concerns for the church. I’m a 6 day, young earth from nothing person, and took quite a bit of stick when doing my physics degree, but took refuge in the church… only to find that I was in the minority again!
Just by way of addition to Tim’s challenge…
Hebrews 11:3 says “By faith we understand that the universe was created by the Word of God” In other words, the only way to understand creation is to have faith in Christ because he made it. Someone who doesn’t have faith in Christ will never understand creation because it is by faith in him that we come understand it. We therefore cannot deduce or measure how, or why there is a creation because such a process does not come from faith, and what does not come from faith is sin (Romans 14:23). Any scientific attempt to describe the universe is therefore idolatrous.
I have 2 questions:
As a Bible believing and scripture loving Christian, you wouldn’t countenance the idea of allowing a Gnostic or Hindu influence on your Bible study, neither of which come from faith, so why science?
How did your exegesis of scripture lead you to your view?
For those interested here’s a link to an informative article by Dr. G.F. Hasel reviewing different interpretations of Genesis 1
The “Days” of Creation in Genesis 1
It gets into the meaning of Yom as brought up by Custard and Glenn
Hi Tim. Thanks for the thorough article. This is a topic on which I’m somewhat conflicted; I see the strength of the Biblical case as you do, but I’m not convinced the standard anti-evolutionary arguments are valid. I’m not sure what to think.
In the interests of presenting more arguments from the other side, I want to direct people to the theistic evolutionist Glenn Morton (a geologist). He argues the Genesis account is historical, but compatible with evolution. I don’t find his proposed interpretation convincing, but it does bypass many or most of your objections. He has a website with many articles. Here are some of the relevant ones:
Days of Proclamation—New Way to Interpret Genesis 1Plain Reading of Genesis 1Why I Believe Genesis is Historically AccurateDoes the Bible Teach Evolution?
When Jesus raised people from the dead, He did so instantaneously. Lazarus had been dead four days, which means his biochemistry was seriously decayed. Jesus completely restored his every bodily function instantaneously, as he did every other person he raised from the dead. Jesus was raised by his Father in an instant.
God is capable of creating life in a moment. He does not need to wait millions of years to achieve what He wants to achieve.
Last time I checked, Charles Darwin’s molecules had not reassembled themselves, and he is still in his grave. When he comes out, let me know and I will believe in his theory. Until then, I’ll believe in what the risen Saviour believed and taught.
On literal interpretations: We must use our noodle here, discerning what is figurative and what is not figurative.
If we interpret everything in the Bible literally, then Solomon has one deformed lover in the Song of Songs; Joseph and Daniel have some explaining to do having referring to visions and dreams when they were in fact literally happening; in Christ’s Revelation angels are literal stars, churches are literal lamp stands and then it really gets bizarre; and Christ’s parables are now unreliable because they, in Luke’s accounting of His story telling, are parables, therefore they must be not so literal…can you believe that our Lord Jesus would speak “un-literally” being himself the Word of God. People do not always say “I’m going figurative here, so please don’t take me literally”. I can make a point that is 100% true with a figurative expression.
The Word is Truth, and the better you understand the original languages and their use of the varieties of rhetoric, the deeper you get to go in the appreciation for it’s richness. And yes it becomes MORE meaningful when they are spiritually discerned. But you do need to be able to read or hear the words as they were meant to be read or heard to get to the spiritual richness they hold. Sometimes, when I read folks on the extreme ends of this debate, I walk away wondering if they are reading it in the in the same language.
I haven’t had time to read every post carefully so someone may have already mentioned Hugh Ross at Reasons to Believe (www.reasons.org). Are you familiar with him?