The NCSE Creationism-Evolution Continuum: It is Time for a New Model

The creation-evolution dialogue is complex. This complexity has lead many to misunderstand the issues, and is an important reason why the false creation/evolution dichotomy continues to enjoy such wide support. Any tool that can accurately simplify the discussion should be welcomed.

A) The Creationism/Evolution Continuum

At first blush, the NCSE's “Creationism-Evolution Continuum” appears to be such a tool. To support their objective of encouraging quality science education, the NCSE developed the tool to combat the perceived conflict between religion & science. In Eugenie Scott’s brief overview of the continuum on the NCSE site she states:

It is highly desirable to move people away from this inaccurate [creation / evolution] dichotomy. A simple classroom exercise, the Creationism/Evolution Continuum, has been used successfully by middle and high school teachers as well as university professors to illustrate the many intermediate positions between the extremes.

Pointing out these intermediary positions is a good way to help people understand that there is some complexity to this discussion. However, it is my view that this model may actually be counter-productive, particularly when promoting evolution in various faith communities. I believe that those of us that support the coexistence and coherence of evolution and an Evangelical expression of the Christian faith need a much better model if we are to make any progress on this issue within the Evangelical community.

1) An Overview of the Continuum
The following diagram illustrates the continuum with two modifications that I added myself. These are the addition of an “Evolution Line” in red and a “Faith Line” in blue.


In the diagram, each of the names to the right of the black diagonal line is a position on origins. Those above the grey dotted line believe the earth was created 6-10 thousand years ago; those below accept the scientific consensus regarding the age of the earth. The red-line separates those that oppose evolution (above) from those that support it (below) while the blue line separates those who profess faith in a creator God (above) from those who do not (below). As a list of origins positions, this is not bad. If you have never seen these before, I encourage you to read Scott’s summary. Her description for most of the positions is quite fair.

2) Problems with the Continuum
Although the Creationism/Evolution Continuum is a useful starting point for understanding the origins controversy and for engaging in dialogue, I think that there are three significant problems with it. These problems include 1) how views on scriptural interpretation are placed on the continuum 2) how views on science are placed on the continuum and 3) there is no simple progression of change within origin views so any model based on a continuum is misleading.

a) The Continuum and Scripture
The first parameter that Scott uses in her continuum is scriptural interpretation. She describes the differences in origin positions this way:

[The diagram] presents a continuum of religious views with creationism at one end and evolution at the other. The most extreme views are, of course, at the ends of the continuum. The creation/evolution continuum reflects the degree to which the Bible is interpreted as literally true, with the greatest degree of literalism at the top.

This is partly true. For the positions above Progressive Creationism this is the case, but after that the characterization of “more literal on top” breaks down. For example, many Progressive Creationists (the last position above the evolution-line) would be comfortable with relatively “non-literal” interpretations of scripture, whereas some TEs would advocate “more literal” interpretations of scripture (eg. Glenn Morton and Dick Fischer).

b) The Continuum and Science
How Scott uses the second parameter – the acceptance of science - is a much bigger concern. She states:

Although it is a continuum of religious and philosophical beliefs, the Creation/Evolution Continuum inversely reflects how much of modern science holders of these different views accept.

This characterization is incorrect. At least when it comes to biological evolution, none of the positions below the evolution-line differ in their science whatsoever; the differences are all philosophical and theological. The EC / TE position is excellent science combined with (IMO) excellent theology and philosophy. The positions below the faith-line also encapsulate excellent science, but (again at least IMO) combine it with incorrect theological and philosophical conclusions.

And here is the key point. The continuum as described on the NCSE site strongly implies that “atheist science is better science”. Even though the objective of the continuum is to counter the belief that “evolutionists must be atheists”, it indirectly implies that evolutionists should be atheists. For this fact alone, I think the model needs to be replaced.

c) There is no Continuum
Continuums by definition are unidirectional; as a parameter changes, one progresses along the scale. The discussion above demonstrates that the Creationism/Evolution Continuum model is incorrect for the two parameters identified on the NCSE site (ie. Scriptural interpretation & acceptance of the scientific evidence). However, my contention is that, if the salient parameters are considered, the Creation-Evolution dialogue is not a continuum at all. In fact, I believe that those positions placed on the bottom of the continuum (those below the blue faith-line) share a very strong common viewpoint with those above the red evolution-line. In other words, the middle of this continuum is a mid-point only if you ignore other important parameters.

B) A New Model

I think a much better model is one that groups the positions above based on their answers to two simple questions:

1. The “Who” question: Did a loving God create the universe, the earth, and life in all its diversity, and does he continue to sustain that creation?
2. The “How” question: Is the theory of biological evolution correct? That is, did life on earth develop over millions and millions of years through the process of evolution?

1) Three Basic Groups
Based on how each position answers these questions, I think that all the positions can be grouped into three broad categories that I’ve defined as “Non-evolutionary Creation” – those above the evolution-line, “Evolutionary Creation” – those between the evolution-line and the faith-line, and “Materialistic Evolution” – those below the faith line.


2) Relationships Between the Groups
What is important to note is that the relationship between these three positions is NOT linear; each group has shared viewpoints with the other two groups. Groups A & B both believe that the universe was created by a loving God, and that he continues to sustain his creation. Groups A and C both believe that the theory of evolution is correct. Finally, Groups B & C also share a common viewpoint, that is that the theory of evolution and theism are mutually exclusive concepts ie. Either God is the creator or evolution occurred. The following diagram illustrates these relationships.


C) Some Brief Concluding Thoughts

I realize that this is a fairly simple model and that there are some weaknesses in it; I will likely comment further in future posts. However, let me briefly list some of the advantages I see in this model:

1. A Simpler Model: Simple is often better and this model includes only the most important categories of positions on creation & evolution. Distinguishing between the many different anti-evolution positions (as the Creationism/Evolution Continuum does) needlessly complicates the picture and is unnecessary when the salient point of discussion is evolution. One either accepts that the theory of evolution is correct or one doesn’t. Placing all the positions that do not accept evolution in a single “Non-evolutionary Creation” group means the model is easier to understand.

2. Connecting the Continuum Extremes: The model points out that there is a very strong shared viewpoint between the “opposite ends” of the Creationism/Evolution Continuum. That is why you sometimes see statements of (tepid) respect from those in group B for those in group C (and vise-versa) when lashing out at the wishy-washy EC crowd in the middle.

3. Creation & Evolution: Independent Concepts: This model clearly illustrates creation and evolution as independent concepts; an answer to one does not necessarily dictate an answer to the other. Of course many disagree vehemently with this claim, but that just shows how committed they are to the BC shared viewpoint, a viewpoint that is just as contentious as the AB and AC viewpoints. Identifying and understanding our shared viewpoints, and where we disagree, is an important step towards dialogue.

4. EC is not one step towards Atheism: This model illustrates (IMO correctly) that the EC position is no closer to atheism than other creationist positions. We too believe in a Creator God, and EC theology can be as orthodox (or more so) and EC faith as strong (or stronger) than that of Christians that take other Creationist positions.

5. EC = good science: This model demonstrates that when it comes to science, EC’s share a common view with other evolutionists. From a scientific perspective, the positions are indistinguishable.

Finally, although I’ve been thinking about this for awhile (see the end of this comment on a past post) I should note that the model shown here is really Draft 0.1 – I fully expect that I’ll need to modify it somewhat. I am interested in hearing feedback and criticisms from readers. Is this a helpful model? What would you change? Are there other models that also deal with these issues better than the Creationism/Evolution Continuum?

Gene Duplication and the GENE project’s … Duplicity?

As funny as this cartoon is, it is also somewhat depressing, at least depressing for those of us that wish to defend the integrity of scripture (including Genesis) and the integrity of creation (one that is evidently evolving). It highlights once again that those who claim to defend the cause of Christ often show precious little evidence of the integrity Christ displayed. No point in surveying all the evidence; just find some evidence, any evidence, that will back up foregone conclusions. (Or better yet, just ignore the evidence and shout louder!).

Two Anti-Evolutionist Claims

Two claims often made by anti-evolutionists are as follows:
1. Biological evolution should not be referred to as science since it cannot be experimentally demonstrated.
2. Evolutionary mechanisms can only degrade the functionality of organisms and “result in a permanent loss of information”. (eg. See this article at AIG)

Stephen Matheson in his post on Gene Duplication shows that both of these claims are false. Reviewing a recent article in Nature, he recounts how gene duplication can result in new functionality. Commenting on the fact that this is demonstrated by real experimentation he states:

First, take note that this article is another example of a sophisticated, hypothesis-driven experimental analysis of a central evolutionary concept. Research like this is reported almost daily.

Not a very Christian Response

What is more pertinent however, is the way some Christian organizations respond to these issues. Matheson continues:

[You would] never learn this by reading the work of Reasons To Believe or the fellows of the Discovery Institute. The mis-characterization of evolutionary biology by the creationists of those organizations is a scandal, and as you might already know, my blog's main purpose is to give evangelical Christians an opportunity to explore the science that is being so carefully avoided by those critics.

As Christians we claim “Our God is Lord of all truth”. Why then are we avoiding data that doesn’t match our expectations? Are we afraid of the data or its implications? Why must Christian apologetic ministries be operated like corporate marketing departments, emphasizing data that coheres with the product they are selling, avoiding the data that demonstrates flaws in their product, and spreading FUD about competitors?

In regards to claim #2 above, Matheson remarks:

You don't need to understand sign epistasis or the structure of transcription factors to get this take-home message: evolutionary biologists are hard at work solving the problems that some prominent Christian apologists can't or won't even acknowledge. How does gene duplication lead to the formation of genes with new functions? The folks at the Discovery Institute can't even admit that it happens. Over at Reasons To Believe, they don't mention gene duplication at all, despite their fascination with "junk DNA." That's from a ministry that claims to have developed a "testable model" to explain scores of questions regarding origins.

And then the punchline (was Matheson reading the cartoon?):

This makes me mad. No matter what you think of the age of the earth or the need for creation miracles, you should be upset by Christians who mangle science to serve apologetic ends. (emphasis mine).

With friends like these, why should we even worry about what Dawkins et al are saying? How are we going to get to the point of “preaching Christ crucified” when the truth itself has been bludgeoned, bloodied, and crucified? Do we actually think the Good News of the resurrection will be considered credible when the credibility of the messenger is demonstratively unreliable?

New Creationist Research

If evolutionary biologists continue to make fruitful progress with their research, how does the research of anti-evolutionist organizations compare? The Institute for Creation Research (ICR) will soon be launching its GENE project on genomics. (This is the same organization that completed the RATE project on radiometric dating which I reviewed here). As an introduction to their new venture ICR states:

[Recently some] scientists gathered at ICR; those strategizing for the upcoming research initiative in genomics. Worldwide discoveries have produced a wealth of raw genomic data just crying for a creationist interpretation. The human genome was decoded a couple of years ago, and now the chimp genome is available along with others. Already dozens of creationist genomists have joined up.

Even though the research will take many years to complete, there is no mystery as to ICR's conclusion. Here is how ICR describes their plan:

The plan is to focus on analyzing the human genome, demonstrating the certainty that man and the animals have no common ancestor.

Even though the research has not started, ICR has already stated the conclusion of their research. I guess they can now begin the process of finding the right facts.

Addendum

I completed the draft for this post last night, but didn’t have time to publish it. Today I noticed Matheson had posted another blog entry entitled On Folk Science and Lies. I recommend reading this post in conjunction with my own.

A pertinent question is this: If someone passionately preaches falsehoods, but they just as passionately believe they are preaching the truth, are they lying? Personally, I would answer no to this question. Since I suspect almost all anti-evolutionary creationists honestly believe they are right, I don’t think they should be accused of lying. (Thus I also strongly object to anti-evolutionary Creationists being called “Liars for Jesus”, something I have seen with some frequency). However, the anti-evolutionary Creationist “ends justifies the means” methodology is definitely a problem. Should it be called deception, duplicity, or something else? Whatever the name, it is this lack of integrity, combined with erroneous conclusions, and a dogmatic insistence that these conclusions are necessary for the gospel, that are proving lethal to the advancement of the gospel.

New Essay on Young Earth Creationism

I have previously recommended Robert Schneider’s exceptional Science and Faith essays on my brief Internet Resources page (which I acknowledge is desperately in need of an update). Schneider has now added to the series with his 8th essay entitled “Young Earth Creationism”. He provides an brief history of the movement, describes its characteristics, and offers a critique of its cultural assumptions, scientific practices, interpretation of scripture, and theology.

He then concludes with wise words on how those of us that support both the integrity of scripture and science should approach YECs:

[It] is critical for Christians like us to enter into conversation with YECs. But it must be respectful. I do not think that trading scientific arguments serves any useful purpose. There is a greater place on which to stand -- on the common ground of the Bible itself. We can help YECs, especially the youth among them, realize that there are other interpretations of the Scriptures that preserve their rightful role as messengers of revelation without cramming into them scientific concepts that they never were meant to contain. We can help them to see that modern science and the Bible are not in conflict with one another, but complement one another, that there is no contradiction between the creating Word revealed by the Rock of Ages and the record of an ancient earth revealed in the ages of rocks.

For those who want to do in depth historical research on the YEC movement, Ronald Number’s “The Creationists” will need to be consulted. For the majority though, Schneider's essay is the place to start. Excellent paper Robert.

Rating RATE: Integrity needs Improvement

In my last post I stated that the creation science movement has often shown a lack of integrity. Randy Isaac highlights this lack of integrity in an article in the June 2007 edition of Perspectives in Science and the Christian Faith (PSCF). Isaac assesses the Institute for Creation Research’s (ICR) just concluded RATE project. RATE stands for “Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth”, and ICR claims that it provides “exciting new scientific evidence which supports the Biblical teaching of a young earth”. However, as Isaac shows, the ICR evidence is inadequate, the interpretation of the evidence is flawed, and worst of all, the way the results are being portrayed is deceptive.

Radiometric dating is the process of determining the age of material (primarily rocks) from the decay of its radioactive elements. One of the key findings of the 800+ page RATE report is that there is overwhelming evidence for more than 500 million years worth of radioactive decay. From this evidence, one would have to conclude that the earth is at least a half billion years old, or at least it has the appearance of being that old. To say that this is a major concession by the premier creationist scientific research organization is an understatement. Creation Science has historically claimed that radiometric dating is inaccurate and completely untrustworthy (for example, see http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dating.asp). Now, however, the most extensive creationist research study in history has concluded that the radiometric dating evidence for an ancient earth is overwhelming. This is a highly significant development.

Since the key evidence from their study does not support the young earth conclusion, the RATE authors propose that the laws of nature must have been radically different in the past. They suggest that there was an accelerated rate of radioactive decay during both the first 3 days of creation, and during the global flood. This hypothesis has two significant problems. First, it has been calculated that the heat caused by this acceleration would have incinerated not only Noah’s ark, but possibly the entire earth. Secondly, if some type of cosmic air-conditioner happened to available for just this occasion, Noah and his family would still need to survive radiation levels a million times greater than we have today. The authors do concede that these are real problems for their hypothesis but they are “confident these issues will be solved”.

Much of the rest of the report deals with a few areas that do support (in the authors eyes) a young earth scenario. Unfortunately, it uses scientific methods and evidence that have been discredited long ago. For example, it is well known that carbon-14 (C-14) dating is accurate only for materials between about 200 and 50,000 years old. As well, C-14 dating is notoriously unreliable when there are only trace amounts of C-14 available. Yet the RATE report’s use of C-14 dating fall outside of these generally accepted parameters.

Isaac summarizes the RATE argument as follows:

• The evidence for 500 million years of radioactive decay, given current natural laws, is overwhelming
  
• Since the bible indicates the earth is young, radioactive decay must have accelerated significantly during the first 3 days of creation and during the flood.
  
• How this acceleration occurred, given the heat and radiation problems, is currently unresolved. However, the RATE authors are confident that resolution will occur.
  
• Therefore the RATE project provides encouragement regarding the reliability of the Bible

This is clearly a circular argument. (Assume “A young earth” therefore “Accelerated radioactive decay”, and because of the possibility of “Accelerated radioactive decay” the evidence points to a “young earth”). Once again the Creationists will provide fodder for the likes of Richard Dawkins who describe faith as “blind trust, in the absence of evidence, even in the teeth of evidence”. And once again, Creation Science organizations demonstrate that they do not examine the evidence to reach a conclusion, but choose data that can be interpreted to meet their pre-existing conclusions. When the data does not cooperate (as in the case of the radiometric dating evidence in the RATE research), a new hypothesis is proposed so that the pre-existing conclusion does not need to be abandoned. This strategy is utilized even when the new hypothesis has even more difficulties than a previously discredited one.

The saddest part of this story is that the RATE project is still being advertised as a “success for Creation Science”. Good science encounters failure all the time. Scientists with integrity admit when this happens and move on. When Christians (whether scientists or not) start acting like corrupt corporate PR departments, when debacles are marketed as success, when creative interpretations of the facts show more influence from Dilbert than the Bible, it can only bring shame to the body of Christ.

Recommended Reading:
As well as the excellent article in the June 2007 edition of PSCF, Randy Isaac has a very good series on Integrity in Science in his weblog. Check out: http://www.asa3.org/weblog/randyisaac/Integrityinscience/

Evangelicalism and Evolution: Why the Discussion Matters

This is the last of four posts that provide an overview of the history & character of Evangelicalism, its historic response to evolution, and why the discussion of evolution matters today.

Is it important for Evangelicals to soften their anti-science stance and discuss the topic of evolution? Does it really matter? In one way, it’s not really that important at all. Understanding and agreeing to biological evolution is no more important than understanding and agreeing to other scientific theories that are supported by significant evidence. One can get along quite nicely without understanding gravity, stellar evolution, or quantum mechanics. (Everyone prior to Newton did). One can be a humble follower of Christ, participate in his kingdom work, and attract others to the Way without agreeing with any of the these scientific theories. So why do I even think that discussing biological evolution is important let alone relevant? Why not just ignore this controversial topic, and concentrate on primary concerns like spreading the gospel, making disciples, serving the poor, and creation care?

From my perspective, it is not actually the theory of biological evolution that is significant, but Evangelicalism’s misguided response to it. Not understanding how God created life is one thing; insisting that God could not have achieved his purpose through biological evolution is quite another. Adding anti-evolution beliefs and an anti-science attitude to the gospel is no addition at all, but a corruption at least on par with the early Jerusalem church’s insistence on continuing the observance of Jewish law. I believe there are four specific dangers to this antagonism to evolution: First, it discourages Evangelicals from participating in science and celebrating the wonders of God’s creation. Second, it is instrumental in causing many to abandon faith in Christ. Third, it promotes and “end-justifies-the-means” attitude to science and encourages Christians to compromise their integrity. Fourth, it prevents many from coming to faith in Christ.

Problem #1: Anti-evolutionism discourages Evangelicals from studying science

As I mentioned in my welcome note, I avoided certain academic disciplines when I was in school (particularly biology) because I dreaded what they would do to my faith. That evolution leads to a loss of faith is an adage repeated constantly YEC organizations, and this repetition enhances the intimidation factor of the evolution bogeyman. From anecdotical evidence, it appears that the fear generated by this claim is a key reason why many other Evangelicals avoid academic disciplines that deal with human origins. (For example, see this article lamenting the fact that there are so few Christian anthropologists). This propagates a vicious cycle. A dearth of Christians in these scientific disciplines make it all the more likely that non-Christian philosophical interpretations of the evidence will abound.

Problem #2: Anti-evolutionism causes many to abandon faith in Christ

YEC organizations often claim that the theory of evolution is causing youth to abandon faith in Christ. I believe that this is an incorrect assessment and that the responsibility lies not with the scientific theory, but with YEC organizations like Answers in Genesis, The Institute for Creation Research (ICR) and Creation Ministries International (CMI) which shackle the gospel with an outdated theory of science. Far from “defending the bible from the very first verse” as AIG claims, the YEC version of the gospel causes many to reject the biblical message because it is poisoned with YEC nonsense. The insistence that abandoning a YEC interpretation of Genesis is equivalent to abandoning the authority of the bible, and ultimately the authority of God, is a horrible travesty. Unfortunately, many Christians have swallowed this YEC version of the gospel, and their faith is shaken when they encounter the evidence for real science.

The testimony of Glenn Morton is instructive. He became a follower of Christ during his college years through the witness of a Christian campus ministry and was told his new faith mandated that he believe in YEC science. To Morton Christ’s life transforming power was authentic, and if YEC beliefs were part of the package, it too must be authentic. As a geo-physicist, he became active in ICR and published many articles that attempted to reconcile the scientific evidence with a YEC interpretation of the bible. Over the years however, he found it increasing difficult to ignore the evidence for a very old earth. Eventually, he was forced to abandon the YEC scientific view. Because his faith was so tightly coupled with the YEC scientific view, he nearly abandoned his faith as well.

Problem #3: “Creation Science” compromises our integrity as Christians

The scientific evidence points overwhelmingly towards an old earth. Even YEC scientist Kurt Wise admits this. He states that:

"I am a young-age creationist because the Bible indicates the universe is young. Given what we currently think we understand about the world, the majority of the scientific evidence favors an old earth and universe, not a young one. I would therefore say that anyone who claims that the earth is young from scientific evidence alone is scientifically ignorant”.

Unfortunately, from my reading, most creationist scientists do not have this kind of integrity and honesty when dealing with the scientific evidence. In an effort to bolster the faith of their followers, they will insist that the scientific data actually points to a young earth. When someone identifies the flaw in a specific scientific interpretation, they tend to move on to new claims and new evidence. Rarely, it seems to me, will YEC promoters admit to their followers that their former claims were invalid, even when the claims have been irrefutably contradicted. (For a growing list of answers to creationist claims, see: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/)

For Creation Scientists, science is not about examining the evidence to reach a conclusion. Rather, their science is about choosing data that can be interpreted to meet a pre-existing conclusion. This is Morton’s view as well. As he grappled with the geological evidence, and tried to discuss this evidence with his fellow creationists at ICR, he found out that:
“… my fellow young earth creationists were not willing to listen to the problems. In general they were not interested in discussing the difficulties and they did not want to read any material that contradicted their cherished position”

God is the creator of all things, the creator of nature, the creator of science. God is not afraid of the data and we should not be either. A dishonest portrayal of the evidence neither honours nor defends God.

Problem #4: Anti-evolutionism prevents many from even examining the claims of Christ

Not only does marrying Creation Science with the gospel cause some to abandon their faith, it can also prevent spiritual seekers from even considering the claims of Christ. For those who are scientifically literate in particular, the patently ridiculous claims of “creation science” are a definite obstacle to acceptance of the gospel.

Preston Jones, a history professor at a Christian university, had an interesting email discussion with Greg Graffin, an atheist and member of the punk rock band “Bad Religion”. In a Christianity Today article, he comments:

In those months of dialogue I also saw the devastation wrought by the passion for pseudo-scientific theories on natural history among some Christians. Many of my students believe that six-day creationism is an essential Christian belief—that if the first chapters of Genesis can't be taken literally, then the whole Bible is a fraud. What tragic nonsense!

Before Greg and I corresponded, I didn't care. "You wanna believe the earth was created six thousand years ago? Whatever." But Greg helped me see that this kind of gaping ignorance promotes the perception that theologically conservative Christians are the enemies of learning.

It is this (often true) assumption that evangelicals are “enemies of learning” that can conceal the truth of the gospel. I like 11th century theologian Anselm’s motto “faith seeking understanding”, meaning an active love of God seeking a deeper knowledge of God. We seek to understand because we have faith, not in order to have faith. When we abandon an attempt to understand, we diminish faith, not enhance it. And unfortunately, our “faith seeking understanding” turns to “faith without understanding”. This can be easily distorted into “faith because there is no understanding” by those opposed to the Christian gospel and finally to “faith because of ignorance” by militant atheists like Richard Dawkins.

Two Myths about the relationship between Christianity and Science

This is the third of four posts that provide an overview of the history & character of Evangelicalism, its historic response to evolution, and why the discussion of evolution matters today.

When I started this blog about a month ago, I stated that the current relationship between evolution and evangelicalism can best be characterized as warfare. While this particular statement is true, I would like to address two popular myths that are extrapolations on the statement above. The first is that the relationship between modern science and religion can be described as one of continuous conflict. The second is that Evangelicals have, from the beginning, unanimously opposed both the scientific views of an old earth and of biological evolution.

Militant atheists claim that the warfare between Evangelicals and evolution is just one new battle theater in the ongoing war between religion and science that started during the Enlightenment. This is a myth in the sense that it is a story, created in the late 19th century, to support an agenda, in this instance an anti-religious (primarily anti-Christian) agenda. It is also a myth in the sense that the historical evidence does not support the claim. Modern science was born, grew, and flourished in a thoroughly Christian Western Europe. Although it would be an exaggeration to say that the Christian worldview was a pre-requisite to the discovery and success of modern science, or that the relationship has always been harmonious, the worldviews have much more in common than the myth above would have us believe.

It is true that modern western Christians often regard claims of new scientific discoveries with skepticism. However, this is also true of the broader scientific community. That is the way science functions. “Show me the evidence” is that mantra that must be followed, particularly when the discovery radically shifts our understanding of how the world works. Wacky theories are constantly being postulated, theories that rarely jive with common sense, and are often simply nonsense. Occasionally, significant supporting evidence for these “wacky theories” is found and we start referring to them as “brilliant theories” instead. Being skeptical of the wacky, and supportive of the brilliant, (even when they describe the same theory) is simply good science.

It is also true that modern Christians have been troubled, not only by the fact that many scientific discoveries contradict “common sense”, but also how some seem, at least initially, to contradict the bible. Common sense confirmed that the earth was immovable, and the bible supported it (1Chr 16:30, Psalm 93:1). It was not only immovable, but also flat (Psalm 104). The Sun moved around this stable earth, and not visa-versa (19:4-6 and Eccl 1:5). The sky was a solid dome (Gen 1:6-8) and the physical location of heaven was just beyond the sky for that is where Jesus ascended. In each case, it was discovered through science that these ideas were incorrect. However, Christians generally assimilated the new scientific theories relatively quickly without abandoning a trust in scripture. Although the old “biblical” concepts of nature still have some recent adherents (check out notes on flat earth believers and geocentricists), the vast majority of Christians (including those who are strict literalists) now reject these ideas.

Christians that support a YEC stance will sometimes promote a second myth, that Evangelicals have historically been unanimous in their condemnation of both evolution and an old earth. The objective is to portray Evangelicals that support either scientific theory as abandoning core Evangelical beliefs. The historical facts also contradict this claim.

As the science of geology developed in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, estimates for the age of the earth increased rapidly from about 75,000 years old to many millions of years old. Although Evangelicals at first grappled with the implications of a very old earth, they rapidly came to accept the fact that the earth was more than 6000 years old, the age of the earth calculated from a “literal” reading of Genesis. Even Charles Hodge and Benjamin Warfield, the two conservative Princeton Theologians who were primarily responsible for formulating the modern doctrine of biblical inerrancy, accepted the fact of an old earth. The two most popular methods that Evangelicals used to reconcile Genesis 1 with an old earth were the day-age theory (each day was not a literal 24 hour day but rather a very long period of time) and the gap theory (the insertion of a very long gap between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2). As the dawn of the Fundamentalist revolution approached in the early 20th century, very few Evangelical leaders still clung to the idea of a young earth.

Evangelical acceptance of the theory of evolution was much less prevalent. Charles Darwin published “The Origin of the Species” in 1859 and both positive and negative reactions were almost instantaneous. Those wishing to damage the Christian faith saw it as an opportunity to prove that the bible was composed of myths and fables; conservative Christians saw it as a threat to God’s role in creation. As such, even from the beginning, there were those on both sides of the debate that positioned evolution as inherently atheistic. By the early 20th century most Evangelicals may have accepted the fact of an old earth, but the majority of them were dead set against the theory of biological evolution.

What is interesting to note however, is that this opposition within the Evangelical community was not nearly unanimous. Some Evangelical leaders were able to reconcile the theory of evolution with a high view of scripture. The noted botanist Asa Gray, an Evangelical from Harvard University, was the most influential initial supporter of Darwin’s theory in America. Benjamin Warfield mentioned above, as well as other Evangelical theologians and clergy, also supported the theory of evolution. Even several of the authors of the Fundamentals, the series of books from which the name “Fundamentalist” derives, either supported a form of evolution or were willing to accept it “if it could be proved on scientific grounds”. Before fundamentalism, the acceptance of evolution certainly did not mean banishment from the Evangelical club.

The obvious question is this: Why today, with the availability of significantly more scientific evidence to support an old earth, have many Evangelicals rejected this claim? Why are they abandoning the theological positions of past Evangelicals that came to accept the evidence for an old earth, just as earlier Christians had accepted the evidence for a round earth and a heliocentric view of the solar system? The rise of “Creation Science” and “Scientific Creationism” is a story in itself, so it will have to wait for a future post. However, I do find it ironic that in the 1960’s while America was pouring resources into science so they could launch a rocket to the moon, Evangelicals began poring resources into creation science so they could launch a counter-attack on the theories of an old-earth and evolution.

These two myths, the myth of constant conflict between science and religion, and the myth of unanimous Evangelical rejection of an old earth and evolution, are being used today to promote opposing agendas. Militant atheists see it as a tool to help them meet their objective of eradicating religion. Militant creationists use it to prop up their credibility as defenders of the faith. Neither have any interest is seeing these myths exposed. And the objectives these myths prop up can be dangerous, dangerous to our faith, and dangerous to our mission. That will be discussed in my next post.

Recommended Further Reading:


“Darwin’s Forgotten Defenders”, byDavid Livingstone: Livingstone provides an overview of the Evangelical response to biological evolution, from the publishing of “On the Origin of the Species” up until the fundamentalist controversy in the early 20th century. As noted in my post, the response was occasionally positive, and the negative response was often understated.


“The Creationists”, by Ronald Numbers: If you are captivated by in-depth, heavily footnoted historical research (136 of 624 pages are footnotes), and fascinated by creationism, then this is the book for you. Ronald Numbers has written the definitive study on the movement. Although rejecting the conclusions of Creationism (it was the claims of Creation Science that caused him to abandon his faith), he writes an honest and thorough account that is at the same time respectful to the Creationist cause.


“When Science and Christianity Meet”, by David Lindberg & Ronald Numbers. A series of essays on the interaction between science and Christianity. The central theme of the book is that the relationship is complex, and that the characterization of the relationship as one of “constant conflict” is not accurate. An academic book, but an excellent volume. I particularly found the essay on Galileo interesting, as it showed the conflict was primarily political rather than religious.