Clarifying Concepts in the Creation-Evolution Dialogue

This is a guest post by Jordan Mallon and is the fifth in our series on “Evangelicals and Evolution: A Student Perspective”. Jordan is a Ph.D. student at the University of Calgary where he is studying the evolutionary palaeoecology of the Late Cretaceous herbivorous dinosaurs from Alberta.

The transition from young earth creationism to a position that reconciles evolution and faith doesn’t occur abruptly. It’s a process that takes time and usually proceeds by the gradual piecing together of concepts and information. This was certainly the case for me. When I was growing up, I sympathized with young earth creationism as taught by the conservative Lutheran church I attended. Now I research and teach evolutionary science at the university level, but only after a prolonged period of soul-searching and careful study during my post-secondary education. My theology of nature is still incomplete, but the clarifying concepts introduced below helped to deconstruct the barriers that often polarize the evolution-creation ‘debate’ and allowed me to gradually formulate what I consider a more integrated view of science and faith. Hopefully, these concepts will help other students in their struggle to harmonize evolution and evangelical Christianity.

1) Agency and Mechanism in Creation

The word ‘creationism’ is understood by many evangelical Christians to refer to the miraculous and instantaneous creation of life by God. This view is prevalent and has pigeonholed many of us into confusing agency for mechanism. That is, the act of creating becomes needlessly associated with divine intervention. The corollary is that any explanation for life’s diversity that doesn’t appeal to miracles, such as evolution, is assumed to somehow exclude God’s creative agency. Evolution is often described by believers and non-believers alike as ‘godless’.

This conflation is unfortunate because the Bible teaches that even natural processes, such as weather, are under God’s control (e.g., Lev 26:4; Deut 11:14; 1 Sam 12:18; Job 5:10, 37:6; Ps 135:7, 147:8). More to the point, we are each called a creation of God (Ps 139:14) despite the fact that human conception and development proceeds by entirely natural processes. The Bible’s distinction between agency and mechanism therefore allows God to exercise His creativity using the laws of nature He instilled at the beginning of creation. In this sense, creationism doesn’t preclude evolution at all! I liken evolution to the Lutheran doctrine of the Real Presence, in which God is “in, with, and under” the natural processes that produce biodiversity on Earth.

2) Methodological and Ontological Naturalism

If evolution were truly godless because it does not invoke divine intervention, then the same argument would necessarily apply to all of science because the scientific method excludes all appeals to the supernatural. Miracles, by definition, can’t be measured or explained and therefore they do not further our knowledge about how the universe works. Sir Isaac Newton once believed that the stability of our solar system was due to the miraculous intervention of God, but the French astronomer Pierre-Simon Laplace later showed that the stability could be explained entirely through the natural laws of gravity.

It’s important to note, however, that the preclusion of miracles from science is only done in practice. Science cannot comment on whether or not miracles happen, or whether or not God exists; science is neutral on these matters. God may perform miracles every day, but for the reasons given above, the scientific method simply can’t detect them. The search for natural processes that operate in the universe is called methodological naturalism. The atheistic belief that there’s no God and that the natural world is all that exists is called ontological naturalism. The former is perfectly in line with Christian principles, but the latter, obviously, is not.

3) Accommodation and Concordism

If there’s nothing inherently atheistic about the scientific theory of evolution, why do so many evangelicals oppose it so strongly? The answer in large part has to do with the assumptions we bring to the scriptures. Evangelicalism, under the influence of fundamentalism, has promoted the idea that in order to take the Bible seriously, we must believe that it provides a literal and accurate description of the physical universe. That is, God revealed to the authors of Scripture scientific facts about the universe that could not otherwise have been known to them at the time. This assumption is known as scientific concordism. A concordist interpretation of the Genesis creation accounts obviously does not leave room for evolution.

In spite of the popularity of concordism as it pertains to Genesis, history shows that it’s a largely unwarranted assumption. At various points in the past, prominent Christian scholars used the Bible to support numerous outdated ideas about science, most notably geocentrism (e.g., Jos 10:12; 1 Sam 2:8; 1 Chr 16:30; Job 38:4; Ps 19:4–6, 24:2, 50:1, 93:1, 96:10, 104:5; Ecc 1:5; Hab 3:11). These ideas have since fallen by the wayside in light of scientific knowledge, and Christians now read these parts of the Bible in a different way. Rather than blindly insisting that our understanding of the physical world must accord with a literal interpretation of these passages, we now appreciate that God sometimes accommodates His message to the limitations of human understanding. The sun may not literally rotate about the earth as the Bible describes, but it certainly appeared that way to the earth-bound Hebrew people of the Old Testament. The principle of accommodation is the understanding that God spoke to the authors of Scripture using language and imagery with which they were familiar. Many Christians now feel that, given the previous shortcomings of concordism, the Genesis creation account might likewise be better understood as an accommodation of God’s timeless message to the culture of the ancient Hebrew people. If that’s indeed the case, then accepting evolution may be no more heretical than accepting that the earth goes around the sun!

Further Reading

The concepts introduced above are obviously interrelated and merit much lengthier discussions than given in this essay, but time and space prevent further elaboration. I’ll offer instead a few relevant resources that helped shape my thoughts here. Stephen Godfrey and Christopher Smith’s co-authored book Paradigms on Pilgrimage dedicate a couple helpful chapters to exploring more fully the concepts of agency and mechanism, and methodological and ontological naturalism. Denis Lamoureux’s books Evolutionary Creation and I Love Jesus and I Accept Evolution similarly provide a thorough discussion of the principles of accommodation and concordism. All the various concepts considered here are connected in Keith Miller’s edited volume Perspectives on an Evolving Creation. Steve Martin tells a similar story to mine in a blog post here. Be sure to also see Steve’s selected bibliography for more resources about the relationship between science and faith.

An Update to the Selected Bibliography on Evangelicals and Evolution

My current selected bibliography on evangelicals and evolution was getting a little long in the tooth (over two years without an update). I have now posted an updated PDF version of the selected bibliography. These are all resources that I have found helpful in my own research into the interaction of evolutionary science and an evangelical expression of the Christian faith.

Note that this is a personal bibliography and is thus biased to my own set of interests (eg. historical context of the dialogue, and the theological implications of evolution); it is certainly not a comprehensive list of resources. For example, the Haarsma’s Origins book is not on the list since I haven’t read it. However, this might be the first book I recommend to an evangelical from the reformed tradition who is investigating evolution & its faith implications for the first time.

As well as uploading the PDF version to scribd, I’ve reproduced the list of resources below.

Selected Bibliography

Alexander, Denis. June 1999. Can science explain everything? scientific naturalism and the death of science. The Cambridge Papers 8 #2, , http://www.cis.org.uk/assets/files/Resources/Articles/Article-Archive/naturalism.htm (accessed December 2006).

———. 2005. Is intelligent design biblical? Evangelicals Now, http://www.cis.org.uk/assets/files/Resources/Articles/Article-Archive/EN_IDarticle.pdf.

———. 2001. Rebuilding the matrix : Science and faith in the 21st century. 1st ed. Oxford: Lion Books.

———. Darwinian evolution: The really hard questions. in ASA 2007 Annual Meeting [database online]. [cited Nov 10 2009]. Available from http://www.asa3.org/ASAradio/ASA2007Alexander.mp3; http://www.asa3.org/ASA/meetings/edinburgh2007/papers/Edinburgh_Alexander_slides.pdf.

———. Does evolution have any religious significance? [cited December 2006]. Available from http://www.cis.org.uk/assets/files/Resources/Articles/Article-Archive/Denis-Alexander-evolution-religious-significance-v2.pdf.

Bartholomew, David J. 2008. God, chance, and purpose : Can god have it both ways?. Cambridge, UK ; New York: Cambridge University Press.

Beale, G. K. 2006. Myth, history, and inspiration: A review article of inspiration and incarnation. Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society: 287-312.

Bebbington, D. W. 1989. Evangelicalism in modern britain : A history from the 1730s to the 1980s. London ; Boston: Unwin Hyman.

Bimson, John J. 2006. Reconsidering a "cosmic fall". Science and Christian Belief 18, (1): 63-81.

Bright, John. 2000. A history of israel. 4th ed. Louisville, Ky: Westminster J. Knox Press.

Brown, Warren S., H. Newton Malony, and Nancey C. Murphy. 1998. Whatever happened to the soul? : Scientific and theological portraits of human nature. Theology and the sciences. Minneapolis: Fortress Press.

Cobern, Bill. One christian's perspective on creation and evolution. in Western Michigan University (SLCSP) [database online]. [cited November 13 2009]. Available from http://www.wmich.edu/slcsp/SLCSP176/SLCSP176.pdf.

Colling, Richard G. 2004. Random designer : Created from chaos to connect with the creator. Bourbonnais, Ill.: Browning Press.

Collins, Francis S. 2006. The language of god : A scientist presents evidence for belief. New York: Free Press.

Collins, Robin. 2003. Evolution and original sin. In Perspectives on an evolving creation., ed. Keith B. Miller, 469-501. Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans.

Dawkins, Richard. 1976. The selfish gene. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Dembski, William. Christian theodicy in light of genesis and modern science. [cited December 2006]. Available from http://www.designinference.com/documents/2006.05.christian_theodicy.pdf.

Dickerson, Richard. June 1992. The game of science: Reflections after arguing with some rather overwrought people. Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 44, (2): 137-138.

Domning, Daryl P., and Monika Hellwig. 2006. Original selfishness : Original sin and evil in the light of evolution. Ashgate science and religion series. Aldershot, England: Ashgate.

Enns, Peter. 2007. Preliminary observations on an incarnational model of scripture: Its viability and usefulness. Calvin Theological Journal 42, : 219-236.

———. 2006. Response to G. K. Beale’s review article on inspiration and incarnation. Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society: 313-326.

———. 2005. Inspiration and incarnation : Evangelicals and the problem of the old testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.

———. Inspiration & incarnation: Thoughts, musings, interactions, responses…about or inspired by the book. [cited November 13 2009]. Available from http://peterennsonline.com/ii/.

Falk, Darrel R. 2004. Coming to peace with science : Bridging the worlds between faith and biology. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press.

Finlay, Graeme. June 2008. Human evolution: How random process fulfils divine purpose. Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 60, (2): 103-114.

———. April 2003. Homo divinus: The ape that bears God’s image. Science and Christian Belief 15, (1): 17-40.

Fischer, D. 1994. In search of the historical adam: Part 2. Perspectives on Science and the Christian Faith 46, : 47-57.

———. 1993. In search of the historical adam: Part 1. Perspectives on Science and the Christian Faith 45, : 241-50.

Giberson, Karl. 2008. Saving darwin : How to be a christian and believe in evolution. New York: HarperOne.

Gingerich, Owen. 2006. God's universe. Cambridge, Mass.: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

Glover, Gordon. 2007. Beyond the firmament. Chesapeake, VA: Watertree Press.

Godfrey, Stephen J., and Christopher R. Smith. 2005. Paradigms on pilgrimage : Creationism, paleontology, and biblical interpretation. Toronto: Clements Pub.

Gould, Stephen J. Evolution as fact and theory. in Stephen J. Gould Library [database online]. 1981 [cited December 2006]. Available from http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html.

Gray, Terry. 2003. Biochemistry and evolution. In Perspectives on an evolving creation., ed. Keith B. Miller, 256-287. Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans.

———. Complexity--yes! irreducible--maybe! unexplainable--no! A creationist criticism of irreducible complexity. in ASA [database online]. [cited December 2006]. Available from http://www.asa3.org/evolution/irred_compl.html.

Haarsma, Deborah, and Jennifer Wiseman. 2003. An evolving cosmos. In Perspectives on an evolving creation., ed. Keith B. Miller, 97-119. Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans.

Haarsma, Loren. March 2002. Can many world views agree on science? Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 54, (1): 28-29.

———. Chance from a theistic perspective. in Talk Origins [database online]. July 29, 1996 [cited May 2006]. Available from http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/chance/chance-theistic.html.

———. 2003. Does science exclude god? natural law, chance, miracles, and scientific practice. In Perspectives on an evolving creation., ed. Keith B. Miller, 72-94. Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans.

———. Is intelligent design scientific? in ASA [database online]. [cited May 2006]. Available from http://www.asa3.org:16080/ASA/meetings/Messiah2005/papers/IsIDScientific_ASA2005.htm.

Haarsma, Loren, and Terry Gray. 2003. Complexity, self organization, and design. In Perspectives on an evolving creation., ed. Keith B. Miller, 288-312. Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans.

Hall, John. 2009. Chance for a purpose. Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 61, (1): 3-12.

Harvey, Allan. Science and nature in christian perspective. [cited December 2006]. Available from http://steamdoc.s5.com/sci-nature/.

Haught, John F., and Carl S. Helrich. 2005. Purpose, evolution and the meaning of life : Proceedings of the fourth annual goshen conference on religion and science. Kitchener, Ont.: Pandora Press.

Hedman, Bruce A. 1989. Mathematics, cosmology, and the contingent universe. Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 41, (2): 99-103.

Hill, Carol. June 2007. A third alternative to concordism and divine accommodation: The worldview approach. Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 59, (2): 129-134.

Hughes, Philip Edgcumbe. 1989. The true image : The origin and destiny of man in christ. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans.

Hurd, James. June 2006. Reply to the real adam and original sin. Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 58, (2): 102-3.

———. 2003. Hominids in the garden. In Perspectives on an evolving creation., ed. Keith B. Miller, 208-233. Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans.

Hyers, Conrad. 1984. Dinosaur religion: On interpreting and misinterpreting the creation texts. Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation 36, (3): 142-148.

———. 1982. Biblical literalism: Constricting the cosmic dance. The Christian Century Aug 4, : 832-841.

Isaac, Mark. An index of creationist claims. [cited November 13 2009]. Available from http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/index.html.

Isaac, Randy. Sept 2005. From gaps to gods. Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 57, (3): 230-4.

———. June 2007. Assessing the RATE project. Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 59, (2): 143-146.

———. 1996. Chronology of the fall. Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 48, : 34-42.

Johnson, Timothy R., and Karl Giberson. Dec 2002. The teaching of evolution in the public school: A case study analysis. Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 54, (4): 242-248.

Kline, Meredith. 1996. Space and time in the genesis cosmogony. Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 48, (1): 2-15.

Krienke, Karl. Dec 1992. Theodicy and evolution. Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 44, (4): 255-257.

Lamoureux, Denis. 2008. Evolutionary creation : A christian approach to evolution. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock.

———. 2008. Lessons from the heavens: On scripture, science and inerrancy. Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 60, (1): 4-15.

———. Evolutionary creationism. [cited May 2006]. Available from http://www.ualberta.ca/~dlamoure/3EvoCr.htm.

Leslie, John. 1989. Universes. London ; New York: Routledge.

Lindberg, David C., and Ronald L. Numbers. 2003. When science & christianity meet. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Livingstone, David N. 2008. Adam's ancestors : Race, religion, and the politics of human origins. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

———. 1987. Darwin's forgotten defenders : The encounter between evangelical theology and evolutionary thought. Grand Rapids, Mich.; Edinburgh, Scotland: W.B. Eerdmans; Scottish Academic Press.

Long, V. Philips, Gordon J. Wenham, and David W. Baker. 2002. Windows into old testament history : Evidence, argument, and the crisis of "biblical israel". Grand Rapids, Mich. ; Cambridge, U.K.: W.B. Eerdmans.

Marsden, George M. 1987. Reforming fundamentalism : Fuller seminary and the new evangelicalism. Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans.

———. 1980. Fundamentalism and american culture : The shaping of twentieth century evangelicalism, 1870-1925. New York: Oxford University Press.

Marsden, George M., Mark A. Noll, Joel A. Carpenter, Roger Lundin, Nathan O. Hatch, and Wheaton College . Authors. 1984. Evangelicalism and modern america. Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans.

McGrath, Alister E. 2008. The open secret : A new vision for natural theology. Oxford: Blackwell Pub.

———. 2005. Dawkins' god : Genes, memes, and the meaning of life. Oxford: Blackwell Pub.

———. 2002. The future of christianity. Blackwell manifestos. Oxford ; Malden, Mass.: Blackwell.

———. Has science eliminated god? in CiS-St Edmund's Online Lectures [database online]. [cited November 13 2009]. Available from http://www.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk/cis/mcgrath/index.html.

———. Has science killed god? (faraday paper #9). in Faraday Institute for Science and Religion [database online]. [cited November 13 2009]. Available from http://graphite.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk/faraday/resources/Faraday%20Papers/Faraday%20Paper%209%20McGrath_EN.pdf.

———. Isn't science more rational than faith? in Evangelical Alliance of the UK [database online]. [cited November 10 2009]. Available from http://www.eauk.org/resources/idea/bigquestion/bq18.cfm?renderforprint=1.

McIntyre, J. A. Sept. 2002. The historical adam. Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 54, (3): 150-7.

———. June 2006. The real adam and original sin. Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 58, (2): 90-8.

McLaren, Brian D. 2003. The story we find ourselves in : Further adventures of a new kind of christian. 1st ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Menninga, Clarence. Sept 1988. Creation, time, and "apparent age". Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 40, (3): 160-2.

———. Dec 1999. Disease and dying in the fossil record. Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 51, (4): 226-230.

Miller, Roman. Mar 2007. Do we debate or dialogue issues of science and faith? Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 59, (1): 1-2.

Miller, Keith B. September 1993. Theological implications of an evolving creation. Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 45, (3): 150-160.

———. June 2002. The similarity of theory testing in the historical and “Hard” sciences. Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 54, (2): 119-122.

———. 2003. Common descent, transitional forms, and the fossil record. In Perspectives on an evolving creation., ed. Keith B. Miller, 152-181. Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans.

———. 2003. Perspectives on an evolving creation. Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans.

Miller, Keith B., and David Campbell. 2003. The "cambrian explosion": A challenge to evolutionary theory? In Perspectives on an evolving creation., ed. Keith B. Miller, 182-204. Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans.

Miller, Kenneth R. 1999. Finding darwin's god : A scientist's search for common ground between god and evolution. New York: Cliff Street Books.

Morris, Simon Conway. 2006. The boyle lecture 2005: Darwin's compass: How evolution discovers the song of creation. Science and Christian Belief 18, (1): 5-22.

Moshier, Stephen O., Dean Arnold, Larry L. Funck, Raymond Lewis, Albert J. Smith, John H. Walton, and William Wharton. Dec 2007. Theories of origins: A multi- and interdisciplinary course for undergraduates at wheaton college. Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 59, (4): 289-296.

Murphy, George L. March 2006. Reading god's two books. Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 58, (1): 64-7.

———. March 2001. Chiasmic cosmology and creation's functional integrity. Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 53, (1): 7-13.

———. March 1986. A theological argument for evolution. Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation 38, (1): 19-26.

———. June 2006. Roads to paradise and perdition: Christ, evolution, and original sin. Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 58, (2): 109-118.

———. Dec 2008. Chiasmic cosmology and atonement. Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 60, (4): 214-224.

———. 2005. Pulpit science fiction. Ohio: CSS Publishing Company Inc.

———. 2003. Christology, evolution, and the cross. In Perspectives on an evolving creation., ed. Keith B. Miller, 370-389. Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans.

———. 2003. The cosmos in the light of the cross. Harrisburg, Pa.: Trinity Press International.

———. 1998. The theology of the cross and god's work in the world. Zygon 33, (2): 221-31.

Murphy, Nancey C. 2006. Bodies and souls, or spirited bodies?. Current issues in theology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

———. 1996. Beyond liberalism and fundamentalism : How modern and postmodern philosophy set the theological agenda. Rockwell lecture series. Valley Forge, Pa.: Trinity Press International.

Murphy, Nancey C., and Carl S. Helrich. 2002. Religion and science : God, evolution and the soul by nancey murphy : Proceedings of the goshen conference on religion and science. Kitchener, Ont.: Pandora Press.

Noll, Mark A. 1994. The scandal of the evangelical mind. Grand Rapids, Mich.; Leicester, England: W.B. Eerdmans; Inter-Varsity Press.

———. 1992. A history of christianity in the united states and canada. Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans.

———. 1986. Between faith and criticism : Evangelicals, scholarship, and the bible in america. Confessional perspectives series. San Francisco: Harper & Row.

Numbers, Ronald L. 2006. The creationists : From scientific creationism to intelligent design. Expand ed. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Peters, Ted, and Martin Hewlett. 2006. Can you believe in god and evolution? : A guide for the perplexed. Nashville: Abingdon Press.

———. 2003. Evolution from creation to new creation : Conflict, conversation , and convergence. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press.

Plantinga, Alvin. Sept 1997. Methodological naturalism. Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 49, (3): 143-154.

———. 1977. God, freedom, and evil. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

Polkinghorne, J. C. 2006; 1988. Science and creation : The search for understanding. Philadelphia: Templeton Foundation Press.

———. Creation, evil, and time. in The Faraday Institute of Science and Religion: Summer 2006 Lecture Series [database online]. 2006Available from http://www.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk/faraday/resources/Summer%20Course%201/045_John_Polkinghorne3.mp3.

———. 2004. Science and the trinity : The christian encounter with reality. New Haven: Yale University Press.

———. 2002. The god of hope and the end of the world. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press.

———. 2000. Faith, science and understanding. London: Spck.

———. 1998. Science and theology : An introduction. London; Minneapolis, Minn.: Spck; Fortress Press.

———. 1994. Science and christian belief: Theological reflections of a bottom-up thinker. Gifford lectures for 1993-4. London: Spck.

———. 1989. Science and providence : God's interaction with the world. London: Spck.

———. The future of the science-religion debate. in The Faraday Institute of Science and Religion [database online]. Available from http://graphite.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk/faraday/resources/FAR173%20John%20Polkinghorne.mp3.

Poole, Michael. 2002. Explaining or explaining away? Science and Christian Belief 14, (2): 123-142.

Poole, Michael, and Gordon J. Wenham. 1987. Creation or evolution : A false antithesis?. Latimer studies. Vol. 23-24. Oxford: Latimer House.

Roberts, Michael. 2008. Evangelicals and science. Greenwood guides to science and religion. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press.

———. 2007. Genesis chapter 1 and geological time from hugo grotius and marin mersenne to william conybeare and thomas chalmers (1620–1825). Geological Society, London, Special Publications 273, : 39-49.

Rogers, Jack Bartlett, and Donald K. McKim. 1979. The authority and interpretation of the bible : An historical approach. 1st ed. San Francisco: Harper & Row.

Rusbult, Craig. Naturalism and NATURALISM (two meanings: Descriptive and atheistic). in ASA [database online]. [cited January 2007]. Available from http://www.asa3.org/asa/education/origins/naturalism.htm.

Sandeen, Ernest Robert. 1978. The roots of fundamentalism ; british and american millenarianism, 1800-1930. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House.

Sarna, Nahum M. 1967. Understanding genesis. The heritage of biblical israel. Vol. 1. New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America.

Schneider, Robert. Essays on science and faith: Perspectives on christianity and science. [cited November 13 2009]. Available from http://community.berea.edu/scienceandfaith/essays.asp.

Seely, Paul. March 2008. Genesis 1–11 in the light of its second millennial worldview: A response to carol Hill’s worldview alternative. Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 60, (1): 44-47.

———. 2001. The date of the tower of babel and some theological implications. Westminster Theological Journal 63, : 15-38.

———. 1997. The geographical meaning of "earth" and "seas" in genesis 1: 10. Westminster Theological Journal 59, : 231-55.

———. 1991. The firmament and the water above. part I: The meaning of raqia in gen 1: 6-8. Westminster Theological Journal 53, : 241-61.

Shults, F. LeRon. 2008. Christology and science. Ashgate science and religion series. Aldershot: Ashgate.

Singh, Simon. 2004. Big bang : The origin of the universe. 1st U.S. ed. New York: Fourth Estate.

Stackhouse, John Gordon. 2007. Defining evangelical. Church and Faith Trends 1, (1): 1-5, http://files.efc-canada.net/min/rc/cft/V01I01/Defining_Evangelical.pdf.

———. 1998. Can god be trusted? : Faith and the challenge of evil. New York: Oxford University Press.

———. 1993. Canadian evangelicalism in the twentieth century : An introduction to its character. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Swinburne, Richard. 2003. The resurrection of god incarnate. Oxford; New York: Clarendon Press; Oxford University Press.

Theobald, Douglas. 29+ evidences for macroevolution: The scientific case for common descent. in Talk Origins [database online]. [cited May 2006]. Available from http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc.

Thorson, Walter. March 2002. Legitimacy and scope of “Naturalism” in science - part 1: Theological basis for "naturalistic" science. Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 54, (1): 2-11.

———. March 2002. Legitimacy and scope of “Naturalism” in science - part II:Scope for new scientific paradigms. Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 54, (1): 12-21.

VanTil, Howard. 2003. Is the universe capable of evolving? In Perspectives on an evolving creation., ed. Keith B. Miller, 313-334. Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans.

Waltke, Bruce K. Barriers to accepting the possibility of creation by means of an evolutionary process. in Biologos [database online]. [cited October 20 2009]. Available from http://biologos.org/uploads/projects/Waltke_scholarly_essay.pdf.

Waltke, Bruce K., and Charles Yu. 2007. An old testament theology : An exegetical, canonical, and thematic approach. Grand Rapids: Zondervan.

Walton, John H. 2009. The lost world of genesis one : Ancient cosmology and the origins debate. Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP Academic.

Wenham, Gordon J. Interpreting genesis 1-11. in The Faraday Institute of Science and Religion [database online]. 2009Available from http://www.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk/faraday/resources/short%20course%203/Gordon%20Wenham.mp3.

Wenham, Gordon J. 1990. Original sin in genesis 1-11. The Churchman 104, (4).

———. 1989. The place of biblical criticism in theological study. Themelios: 84-9.

———. 1987. Genesis 1-15. Word biblical commentary. Vol. 1. Dallas, Tex.: Word Books.

Wiens, Roger. Radiometric dating: A christian perspective. [cited May 2006]. Available from http://www.asa3.org/aSA/resources/Wiens.html.

Wigner, Eugene. 1960. The unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in the natural sciences. Communications in Pure and Applied Mathematics 13, (1): 1-14.

Wilcox, David L. March 2004. Establishing adam: Recent evidences for a late date adam. Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 56, (1): 49-54.

———. 2004. God and evolution : A faith-based understanding. 1st ed. Valley Forge, Pa.: Judson Press.

———. 2003. Finding adam: The genetics of human origins. In Perspectives on an evolving creation., ed. Keith B. Miller, 234-253. Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans.

Wilkins, John. Evolution and chance. in Talk Origins [database online]. [cited December 2006]. Available from http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/chance/chance.html.

Wright, N. T. Can a scientist believe the resurrection? in The Faraday Institute of Science and Religion [database online]. [cited December 2008]. Available from http://www.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk/faraday/resources/NTWright.mp3.

Wright, N. T. 2003. The resurrection of the son of god. Christian origins and the question of god. Vol. 3. London: Spck.

Young, D. A. 1995. The antiquity and the unity of the human race revisited. Christian Scholar's Review 24, : 380-96.

My Transition from a Conservative Creationist to a Theistic Evolutionist (albeit with some unanswered questions)

This is a guest post by Eric DeVries and is the fourth post in our series on “Evangelicals and Evolution: A Student Perspective”. Eric is a post-grad biology student at Calvin College.

I’m an evolutionist, a theistic evolutionist to be specific. My transition to this position is relatively recent and I still have much to learn about the interaction between faith and science. I can’t say that my journey is a unique story, but maybe it resonates with some readers of this series.

So here it is.

Early impressions of Evolution
I grew up in a typical, western Michigan, Dutch family. By this I mean to say my family was reserved, proper, and attended church every Sunday. Our first church was a mega-church named Calvary which we attended until I was in 4th grade. At this point my dad decided that he was tired of all the behind the scenes drama so we left to find a “better” church. Ironically we ended up at one of the spiritually deadest churches I have ever attended. It was there that the idea of evolution was first presented to me. And in a typical “good” Christian way, it was described as a theory which directly contradicted the bible and was therefore wrong; so wrong in fact that those who accepted it were ostracized as “unbelievers”.

Attending a Conservative Christian school in a Liberal part of America
When I was in grade 6 my family moved to a part of California that many would describe as relatively liberal. Being the only Christian school in the area, my parents enrolled me in a conservative, Baptist school. Again the idea was taught that evolutionary science could not be reconciled with God’s plan for humanity. Only this time instead of just hearing it, I integrated it into my belief system and self-identify. I came to believe that whomever held to the theory of evolution was at best direly misguided and at worst going to hell.

Instead of joining an existing church, my family connected with a couple other families to start our own church. We lived the challenges of launching a church in an area resistant to organized Christianity. One of the biggest challenges was church growth, which was extremely slow. This lead to quickly solidifying the relationship between my family and the few others who were part of the church and it was with these families that my love of the outdoors, of mountains and the ocean, developed. The hobbies of hiking and backpacking became central to my life in California, sparking my interest in biology. Evolution was not really avoided as a subject of discussion with this group of families; it was more put on a side burner, and not considered an important enough issue to waste energy discussing. Instead we went about meeting a much more diverse group of people, realizing that Christianity does actually consist of more than the conservative, Dutch social group we were part of in Michigan.

Learning to be more Open-Minded in a Conservative Heartland
Moving back to Michigan is a turning point in this story. The irony is that I started becoming more open minded in one of the most conservative places in America after I had learned to be a fundamentalist in one of the most liberal areas of the country . On the recommendation of my dad, I became connected with Young Life, which is a Christian organization in high schools. I loved it. These people, instead of hiding their failings, accepted them and worked those weaknesses into their stories, changing them into something that God could work with to teach others. My experiences in the conservative Christian school in California had taught me the exact opposite, to hide my failings and only deal with them between myself and God. It took me a long time to accept this new approach, nearly two years in fact.

We started attending a church in Grand Rapids which was pretty “radical”. The pastor there had no reservations about discussing topics which most churches would avoid. The sermons opened up dinner table discussions. Our discussions became more open minded, and my parents tackled controversial topics; we were not afraid to ask some hard questions about our conservative brand of Christianity. We never outright denied specific traditional beliefs, but we were encouraged to ask questions about these beliefs. Yet through this entire time I never gave up on my belief that evolution was a theory from the devil, and that the proponents of evolution were like little demons running around spreading a theory directly against the will of God.

These discussions, along with my eventual acceptance of my failings, became a crucial point in my ability to mentally prepare myself to engage evolution once I went off to college.

Starting College and my investigation into Evolution
After graduating from high school I attended Calvin College. Calvin was like pouring alcohol on a fire as it caused my desire to ask questions, and in particular questions regarding evolution, to explode. Why did so many Christians at this Christian College actually accept this theory which I had been taught was wrong (notice the difference between belief and taught at this point in my life)? I began to dig deeper into the evidence for evolution; and the more I learned the more concerned I became. Evolution made sense, or at least its basic arguments made sense. Some of the particulars were, for me, a bit sketchy. But the basic claims of evolution had a logical ring to them, and they appealed to that left-brained side of who I am. So I accepted a conditional form of evolution which excluded the common ancestry of apes and humans. These new ideas brought tension between my faith and what I was beginning to accept about evolution. It was a real testament to the changes I had been going through since moving back from California that I was able to spiritually and intellectually engage evolutionary theory.

Evolution and Biblical Interpretation
My exploration of evolutionary theory, and its implications, made me revisit my ideas of biblical interpretation. I began to see that a literalistic interpretation of Genesis leads to many discrepancies. One, which may not seem as blatant as others, but oddly enough is the one I remember most, is the geography of the Garden of Eden. In Genesis 2 the garden is described as having 4 rivers flowing through it. One of those is located in Egypt, while two others are located in current day Iraq, and the fourth has its probable current day location in Ethiopia. How these four rivers found themselves, within the recent past (geologically speaking), to either originate or terminate in one area is still beyond me.

This rethinking of biblical interpretation was important in my journey. But even more important was the evidence supporting evolution. Coming back to Calvin, following a semester in Spain during my third year, I decided to take a J-term evolutionary biology class. This class was a three week course exploring the evidences behind evolution. I had previously studied population genetics, homology, and common ancestry in first two years of college, but had yet to see a condensed list of the evidence supporting each idea. We examined the various anatomies of the ear bone in the transition from land to water in the story of the whale. We read The Song of the Dodo by David Quamman, which sifts through the various ideas presented by naturalists over the past two centuries before delving into island biogeography and its affects on the composition and genetics of an isolated population. But most important was our discussion about genetics, which was spurred on by our readings in Quamman and our study of the whale. I began to see the picture of history painted by genetics using the mechanism of evolution.

And it convinced me.

Now I identify myself as a theistic evolutionist; an interesting transition.

Conclusion
I transitioned from a conservative creationist to a theistic evolutionist in a journey that took anywhere between 4 and 8 years, depending on the starting point. Today I see evolution as a beautifully fluid display of the creative aspect of God. But that does not mean I have all the pertinent questions answered. One of the biggest unanswered questions is how to explain death. Evolution is pushed forward by death, but according to the biblical account death is an evil only present in the world after “the fall”. And for that reason how do I explain “the fall”? So evolution doesn’t explain everything, and it actually presents new problems.

But evolution happens. For me the bible no longer dictates what I believe about science. I don’t think it was ever meant to. Science describes science. That’s that.

An Evolutionary Biology Student Discovers Christ ... and the Toxic Anti-Evolutionism that often Taints the Gospel

This is a guest post by Emiliano Carneiro Monteiro and is the third post in our series on “Evangelicals and Evolution: A Student Perspective”. Emiliano is a doctoral student studying cellular biology with a focus on morphology at the Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil. He is currently researching the digestive system of a Phasmid (stick bug) species, as well as physiological features of its digestive processes.

A) My New Life in Christ
My story with Christianity, and with its struggle with science, began on January 31st, 2007. In the middle of a great big mess in my life I met Alberto Malta, a very dear friend and a leader with Campus Crusade for Christ at the Universidade de São Paulo. I was in the last year of my undergraduate degree in biology and after a long talk with Alberto, I took the first step towards the Christian faith and accepted Christ. Before that, in my adolescence and throughout college, I would have described myself as an agnostic or an atheist, although today I realize my position was probably pantheistic. The Campus Crusade for Christ website published a little post about my story at: http://www.ccci.org/training/evangelism/cojourners/builder-model.aspx

B) My Introduction to Creationism
At the time, I was already well aware that some Christian denominations did not accept evolution and held a ‘literalistic’ interpretation of the book of Genesis. Although it surprised me at first I didn’t really mind; I was busy experiencing my new life and setting my things straight. Furthermore I saw no problem with Darwin's theory. Evolution didn't get in the way of my faith but actually helped. To me, it was a wonderful and elegant process that explained how life developed. Back then the subject of creation and origins rarely came up. When it did I often told people that I accepted evolution but wasn’t a fanatic about it and that there should be more profound and fulfilling explanations that lay outside science.

But tension soon arose. At the first church I attended (Igreja Batista Esperança) everyone kept talking about “Dr. Adauto Lourenço”. I soon discovered that he was a physicist, with a doctorate degree from Bob Jones University, and a creationist. I wasn’t completely aware at the time of what kind of arguments creationists used to defend their point of view. I never met Adauto Lourenço in person, but I rushed to buy a set of 5 DVDs with his lectures.

C) Discussions: Some Fruitless, some Fruitful
While watching the DVDs I had my first faith crisis. Here was a Christian preacher spreading information that was simply not true. Soon I ran across more and more information about the whole “Creation vs Evolution” subject. In no time I was familiar with most (if not all) arguments used by creationists to defend their point of view. I was also aware that almost all their arguments were false. To make the situation worse the topic suddenly seemed to be really important for those around me. However, the many discussions I had were tiring and fruitless, so I avoided arguments about it as much as I could when at Church or among Christian friends.

I even had one or two arguments with my girlfriend, Karollina, on the subject. She is also a biologist and played a big role in leading me to Jesus Christ. Until recently, she defended a creationist point of view (she was never profoundly interested in the whole controversy though). Through my own investigation, interest and dialogue, she became aware of the full array of Creationist’s arguments. She has since reviewed her ideas and now accepts the compatibility of evolution and the Christian faith.

D) Evangelical Christianity in Brazil
Evangelical Christianity is having truly exponential growth here in Brazil. That is great because many people are getting to know more about the gospel and are engaging in following Jesus Christ. It is also very good that we Brazilians are developing our own identity and addressing the unique problems we face here south of the equator. Still, the process is slow and evangelical Christians in Brazil tend to follow trends in the US evangelical church. Antagonism towards evolution is one harmful idea that the American church has exported to Brazil.

I’m extremely grateful to those who helped me grow in my Christian faith. Still, it breaks my heart to see so many honest followers of Jesus believe that one must deny evolution in order to be a Christian. That is due partly because of a lack of information, but also due to the spreading of misinformation (for example, the ministry of Dr. Adauto Lourenço). I continue to find the subject of evolution completely fascinating, and learn more and more everyday. I do not think that the knowledge of the theory of evolution should interfere in a destructive way with anyone’s beliefs.

E) Portuguese Resources on Science and Faith
Francis Collins’s book Language of God really helped me. I remember thinking while reading: “Hey, this guy agrees with me!”. I also had the opportunity to meet and talk to some ministers and theologians whose views on Christian faith and science differ from the creationists. Unfortunately very few books that show a positive relationship between faith and science get translated into Portuguese, and other resources in Portuguese are almost non-existent.

Instead, creationism is being widely promoted amongst evangelical communities in Brazil as being the one and only Christian approach to science. It is despairing for me to see anti-evolutionary misconceptions and false scientific statements being spread in a country that already has significant challenges with its educational system (poor management, and lack of investment from the state). I don’t think there has ever been a poll in Brazil to measure the acceptance of evolution, but I doubt the results would be good.

F) Conclusion
So that is my story. I am hopeful that with prayer, love and action, we may see a change in the evangelical churches in Brazil. I am hopeful that they can spread the Gospel in a way that is relevant for my fellow countrymen, but without the damaging additions to the Word of God that are intellectually faulty and hinder faith in Jesus Christ.

Paz de Cristo

My Journey from Opposing Evolution to Studying It

This is a guest post by Ryan Bebej and is the second in our series on “Evangelicals and Evolution: A Student Perspective”. Ryan is a Ph.D student at the University of Michigan in the Dept. of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology where he studies the early evolution of whales.

That I am currently studying evolution is somewhat of a miracle. If ten years ago someone had told me that today I would be earning my Ph.D. at a large public university, researching the evolution and paleontology of mammals, I would have never believed them. Why not? Well, for the majority of my life, I believed that the concept of biological evolution was complete rubbish. I was raised in a close-knit Christian family that was very active in our local church, and I had always been taught that the Bible was literal history, precluding any types of evolutionary scenarios.

These anti-evolution sentiments were indirectly affirmed even in my public high school. In the small town where I grew up, being a Christian was virtually assumed, and schools were very accommodating of religious belief—even in the classroom. I recall that the little background on evolutionary theory that I gleaned from my high school biology class was prefaced with a disclaimer that we didn’t have to believe any of it if we didn’t want to. Needless to say, I promptly forgot most of what was said about Charles Darwin, natural selection, and the like, and I continued believing what I thought almost everyone else around me believed: that God created the universe miraculously several thousand years ago and that the idea of evolution was simply not true.

My Initial Exposure to Evolution in College

However, once I got to college, things began to change; it was there that I began to seriously wrestle with evolutionary theory for the first time. In my introductory biology class at Calvin College, we read some articles about evolution by writers ranging from Phillip Johnson to Howard Van Till to Richard Dawkins. These initial readings didn’t convince me to change my views, but they did prompt me to start thinking critically about evolution for the first time.

In my second semester, I took an animal biology class that spent a good deal of time focusing on how evolution works according to population genetics. Prior to this, I had never really understood the basics of evolutionary mechanisms, and I admit that I was a bit alarmed at how plausible it seemed. Could evolution really have occurred? If it did, what would that mean for my faith? This became a crucial issue for me, and I began to read ravenously and watch anything and everything I could get my hands on that discussed evolution. Yet, despite my little obsession with the topic, if someone had asked me what I thought about evolution at that time, I would have answered with a resounding, “I have no clue.”

My Second Year: The Evidence Builds

I read a ton during the summer following my freshman year. By the time my sophomore year began, I had realized that there was an awful lot of strong evidence for biological evolution. During my second year of college, the strength of this evidence continued to grow. In my comparative anatomy course, the homology of structures across disparate animals, as revealed by their development, provided compelling evidence for common ancestry. I also took two geology courses, in which I learned about radiometric dating, stratigraphy, and how to interpret the rock record, and I became thoroughly convinced that the earth had to be billions of years old rather than thousands.

In a January term evolutionary biology class, we surveyed the fossil record, and I was completely overwhelmed by the anatomies of transitional fossils, of which I had virtually no prior knowledge. These fossils exhibited the mosaics of anatomical characteristics that one would expect to see in an intermediate form, and they came from fossil beds during the time periods between their proposed ancestors and descendents. In my mind, the evidence for the evolution of life on an ancient earth continued to grow (and this was before I even knew about the abundant genetic evidence). I became convinced that evolution was anything but false; in fact, given the weight of the evidence, it seemed to be the only coherent explanation of the past and present biological world.

Evolution and My Faith

But even as I began to accept that evolution was a real phenomenon, I still wasn’t sure how this could be reconciled with my Christian beliefs. Growing up, I had always thought that there were two positions: you were either an atheistic evolutionist or you were a Christian who was opposed to evolution—there was no middle ground. Fortunately, my Calvin professors, in both the science and religion departments, demonstrated to me that there are many people who don’t fall into these two polarized camps. There are many Christians who agree with the findings of the greater scientific community, while managing to retain—and even grow and strengthen—their faith. This revelation opened up a whole new set of doors to me that I had no idea even existed.

Since those first couple of years when I was afraid that my knowledge of evolution would lead to a crisis of faith, I have found the opposite to be true. My study of evolution as a scientist and my pursuit of integrating my scientific knowledge with my Christian beliefs have helped my faith to grow by leaps and bounds. I often wonder how my faith would have been affected had I been confronted with the evidence of evolution somewhere other than Calvin. If I had not had the support and encouragement of such understanding Christian professors who cared deeply about my personal and spiritual development, my faith might not have remained intact. But by God’s grace, I was in just the right place at the just the right time, and today I take great pleasure in studying the long history of life in God’s creation.

Evangelicals and Evolution - A Student Perspective: Introduction

This is the first post in a seven-part series on “Evangelicals and Evolution: A Student Perspective”.

For many evangelicals, their first serious encounter with evolution occurs as a student in post-secondary school. Evolution is certainly encountered and discussed prior to this, but it is usually in the form of anti-evolution propaganda. Our churches, youth ministries, Christian camps, and other Christian organizations are very good at attacking evolution; they are not so good at introducing thoughtful material on the dialogue between modern science and an evangelical expression of the Christian faith. Thus the first encounter with the evidence for evolution in college or university can be a formative experience for evangelical students; it can be traumatic or awe-inspiring, depressing or exhilarating, faith shaking or faith affirming.

Better Availability of Resources for Today's Students
Fortunately evangelical students today have access to much better resources than past generations. Today, there are numerous books, articles, and electronic material that provide a positive view of evolution from an evangelical perspective; even twenty years ago these resources were virtually non-existent. Today a healthy minority (maybe majority?) of evangelical scientists accept the scientific consensus for evolution, our OT biblical scholars acknowledge that the best scholarly interpretations of the ancient scriptures (including Genesis) do not in any way exclude evolution, and a healthy number of our theologians accept that God created through the process of evolution.

This recent, and significant, change is reflected in our mainstream evangelical institutions. For example, Wheaton (which could possibly be referred to as “Evangelicalism’s Rome”) has for years been offering a Theories of Origins science course for its undergraduates. The major course objective is to give students a background for evaluating the merits of scientific and theological claims for origins theories. Source material from a range of creationist positions (YEC, OEC, and EC) is reviewed in the course. Student surveys show that a YEC position on human origins is historically the position with the most support at the beginning of the course, and the position with the least support when the course ends.

The Series
Over the next month, in a series of posts on this blog, five post-secondary students will be sharing their perspective on evolution. Three science students will share their personal accounts on reconciling their faith with evolutionary science. In separate posts, Ryan Bebej and Eric DeVries will describe their transition from opposing evolution because of their faith, to accepting evolution while growing in their faith. Sandwiched between these posts, will be the story of Emiliano Monteiro, a student of evolutionary science, who found faith in Jesus Christ through a campus ministry, but then discovered that his new Christian community rejected the conclusions of the science he was studying. The fourth post in this series will be from Jordan Mallon. Jordan has been involved in the creation-evolution dialogue for quite some time, and he will share three concepts that he has found helpful in this dialogue. Finally, Bethany Sollereder, a theology student, will discuss why Christian academics often avoid the topic of evolution. Evangelical academia may be making progress, but there is still room for vast improvement.

The evangelical landscape on the science-faith dialogue has changed dramatically in the last generation. Although we are still a long way from making peace with science, I am hopeful that within another generation evangelicalism will have accomplished this once seemingly impossible objective. If we are to arrive there, it is this generation of students that will be carrying the torch.

Enjoy the series.

Almost Half of Evangelical Theologians Accept Evolution?

About a year and half ago I commented that evangelical theologians seem hesitant to engage in the science / faith dialogue. Chiding them as “timid”, I asked:

If we [evangelicals] cannot speak to the issues of the day, how can we expect others to be interested in the gospel? If we aren’t answering the questions that are being asked, why are we surprised when people (including our youth) look elsewhere for answers?

Evangelical theologians: This is not so much a complaint as a request for help.

A few months later, I indicated that I might have been too harsh, and that evangelical theologians were indeed re-evaluating their reluctance to consider the implications of an evolving creation. In a post on the relationship between the leading evangelical scientific organization (the ASA) and the leading evangelical theological organization (the ETS), I shared how Bruce Waltke, a former president of the ETS, had come to accept evolution. I ended this essay by chiding myself and some of my fellow ECs with the remark that:

Maybe we just need to be patient and let [evangelical theologians] think this [science / faith topic] through for awhile.

By “awhile”, I was thinking years, if not decades.

Well, maybe evangelical theologians are much, much further along in this process than many of us had ever imagined. In a survey that Waltke conducted for Biologos, he found that almost half (46%) of evangelical theologians that responded to his survey accept that God created through the process of evolution. (HT: David Opderbeck)

You read that right: 46% of evangelical theologians that participated in Waltke’s survey, accept that God created through the process of evolution.

I think there are some legitimate questions that can be asked about the methodological rigour of this survey. But even if the 46% number is somewhat inflated (and I suspect this is probably the case), evangelical theologians are not even close to being predominantly opposed to evolution.

Now if only some of this theological thinking would translate into more theological discussion and theological action ….

Patience, Steve, patience.

A New Series by Students - and other Announcements

Just a very brief note announcing a new series and some other upcoming posts on this blog.

“Evangelicals and Evolution: A Student Perspective” Series

Starting next weekend, we’ll be starting that long-promised “Evangelicals and Evolution: A Student Perspective” series. In this series five evangelical students will be sharing their personal perspectives on the science-faith dialogue. This is a series by students and for students. So if you know of any students for which this topic is (or should be) of some interest, please feel free to pass the message along. (Of course, this being an open forum, everyone can participate – even those like me whose student career is but a distant memory - yikes, those 20 years went fast!).

Psychological Type and Student Views of the “Origins Debate”

Last fall, Marlowe Embree published a series here called “The Social Psychology of the Origins Debate”. Marlowe is conducting research on how psychological type affects student attitudes to the origins debate. He has volunteered to summarize some of the preliminary results of that research on this blog. Given the timeliness of the topic to the series announced above, I’ve decided to post it either immediately following the series, or possibly in the middle as a sort-of series intermission (I like to keep my options open).

ESE status

I haven’t forgotten about the Evangelical Statement on Evolution (ESE) that we discussed here this summer – although, I must admit it has been buried pretty deep on my mental to-do list the last couple months (that day-job keeps getting in the way!). I did publish the series as an ebook for those who prefer that format, and I have started some offline discussions on how to proceed. Hopefully I’ll have something to report soon.

Polkinghorne Quotes #11: Orthodoxy – Neither Inflexible Nor Disconnected from the Past

This is the 11th post in a series on the writings of John Polkinghorne.

Orthodox theology is one of the hallmarks of Evangelicalism; the basic beliefs of the Christian faith as articulated by the inspired New Testament writers, the Apostles and the Church Fathers, and as documented in the early church creeds, are non-negotiable. We are followers of Christ that value “right belief”.

But that doesn’t mean we are locked into an ancient mindset, one that is no longer tenable in the age of modern science. As Polkinghorne states:

The Nicene Creed provides us with the outline of a rationally defensible theology which can be embraced with integrity as much today as when it was first formulated in the fourth century.

From Science and the Trinity, page 29

The reason for this, as Polkinghorne astutely comments, is that the creeds themselves are, “condensed in character” and do not “[prescribe] all the details” of how Christian theological discourse must be conducted. “Orthodoxy is not inflexibility”. [Evangelical theologians: Please take a deep breath and repeat this short, beautiful phrase ten times].

This allows for a “developmental approach” to the dialogue between science and theology. Polkinghorne states that he seeks a:

“… basis for Christian belief that is certainly revised in the light of our twentieth-century insights but which is recognizably constrained within the envelope of understanding in continuity with the developing doctrine of the Church throughout the centuries.”

From Science and the Trinity, page 28

It is this developmental approach that can lead to fruitful insights in our thinking about the Creator and his creation. But many theologians, it seems, want to abandon the wisdom of the past. This can lead to conclusions that fall well outside the boundaries of orthodoxy. Polkinghorne recognizes this danger and warns that theologians, like scientists, must stand on the shoulders of giants.

The essential issue is whether substantial new thinking in theology can satisfactorily be achieved largely in disconnection with past understanding. There is always the danger that the gusting of Zeitgeist might wrongly be mistaken for the Wind of the Holy Spirit.

From Science and the Trinity, page 26

This warning should be taken very seriously. New scientific insights present not only new theological opportunities, but also new theological challenges. We must wrestle with the difficulties, and not sweep them under the table. We trace our faith lineage a long way, from the patriarchs, through the prophets, the apostles, the Church fathers, and the reformers. They wrestled with the faith issues of their day, and we can learn from their wrestling as we wrestle with our own. And when we are wrestling, we must pray for guidance from the Holy Spirit, the source of true wisdom.

The Process of Building an Evangelical Statement on Evolution (ESE)

This is the sixth post in a series on “An Evangelical Statement on Evolution (ESE)”. If you are new to the series, you may wish to read 1) The Introduction, 2) ESE Objectives, 3) ESE Approach , 4) ESE Contents, and 5) ESE Contents Addendum first.

I would like to thank everyone who participated in the conversation on the ESE, both in the comment sections and via email; in particular I’d like to thank those who provided emails of encouragement. To me, it is clear that the time is ripe for this type of statement from Evangelical ECs. This (much delayed) final post outlines my own ideas on how we should tackle the project.

Even though the internet is ideal for connecting those with common interests, I believe that it is imperative for the ESE to be launched and lead by a group that can meet (at least initially) in face-to-face discussions. What the ESE says and how it is communicated to the broader Evangelical community will be scrutinized very closely. Since the ESE is a message of hope for our (current and future) brothers and sisters in Christ, we must make every effort to avoid careless, uninformed, or insensitive statements. Face-to-face discussions should minimize this risk.

The Process
The tasks listed below are the ones I believe are necessary to make the ESE a success. This is a more-or-less chronological process although some overlap is possible.

1) Formation of the ESE leadership group
The first step is to form a leadership group that can provide oversight to all aspects of the project, and who will be accountable for its ultimate success. This group should have experts from various academic and vocation backgrounds (scientists, theologians, biblical scholars, pastors) and should reflect the broad theological diversity within Evangelicalism.

2) Definition of vision and objectives
The first task for the leadership group is to define the vision and objectives for the ESE. The discussion during this blog series (particularly in the objectives and approach posts) may be a helpful starting point here.

3) Define and enlist a roster of authors
A small group of authors should be enlisted to draft the ESE. This group could be a subset of the leadership group; it should certainly include the same theological, academic, denominational, and vocational diversity. Ideally this roster would be composed of 4 to 6 individuals; anything more could prove unwieldy.

4) Define and enlist a group of Founding Signatories
The roster of founding signatories may be even more important than the roster of authors; ie. who signs the document may be just as significant as what it says. Ideally, all denominational, theological, and international constituencies that are included within Evangelicalism will be represented within this group in some form. The group should also be composed of respected Evangelical theologians, biblical scholars, church and parachurch leaders, as well as Evangelical scientists from the various scientific disciplines relevant to the study of evolution. Recruiting these founding signatories will be crucial for the success of the ESE. It would also be helpful if these signatories committed to providing an introduction to the ESE (either formal or informal) to their own constituency in a forum that seems most appropriate to them.

5) Define the process for drafting and achieving approval for the final statement
Although the authors are tasked with drafting the statement, they should solicit input from a wide range of Evangelicals. At a minimum the entire leadership group and founding signatories would need to approve the final wording. Yes I understand that this step could significantly delay the publication of the statement. However, I believe that formulating a high-quality statement is more important than releasing a hasty statement.

6) Publish the ESE
This is probably the easiest task; the internet is the ideal place to publish a statement of this sort and there are lots of options available. The leadership group could also augment this with other targets (eg. Evangelical publications like Christianity Today).

7) Implement a communication plan
The initial publication of the ESE will certainly be important. However, we are after lasting impact, not simply a flurry of publicity. As such, there needs to be an ongoing communication plan to ensure that believers and seekers continue to hear and have access to the message that faith and evolution are not in conflict. Fifteen or twenty years from now the Evangelical church may have come to a lasting peace with science. Until then we need a plan to continue communicating the harmony between faith and science.

8) Implement a mechanism to enroll other signatories
Finally, the ESE should have some mechanism for other Evangelical ECs to sign the statement. As well, there should be processes in place for the ongoing management of this list.

The First Step
From my viewpoint the first step is to form the ESE leadership group. And although I believe this blog series outlines a solid framework for launching the ESE project, and that an informal group made up of EC bloggers and our readers could publish a fairly good statement, we could never come close to maximizing the potential of this project. As I hinted earlier, I think the Biologos Foundation is ideally positioned to initiate this project. That fall workshop led by Tim Keller with 15 leading scientists, 15 leading theologians, and 15 leading pastors from the Evangelical community seems to me to be an ideal forum to launch the discussion. The focus of the workshop will be on:

celebrating God’s creation in light of 21st century knowledge about the universe and our place in it.

Worshiping our Creator and celebrating his creation brings joy to both us and Him. But not everyone feels this sense of wonderment and contentment. For many, discussions about how the Creator created produce only cognitive dissonance. We must go beyond celebration and communicate to others why this celebration is both possible and warranted. I believe the ESE can help accomplish this goal.