Evolution in Public Schools: A Threat or a Challenge?

This is a guest-post by Physicist Karl Giberson, and is the eighth installment in our “Evangelicals, Evolution, and Academics” series. Karl is the author of the book Saving Darwin: How to be a Christian and Believe in Evolution.

America’s evolution controversy is rooted, curiously, in her noble attempts to provide every child with a free quality education. Early in the 20th century, when public schools began to educate students beyond the 8th grade, the curriculum included impressive amounts of science. And, although evolution in textbooks like that used in the Dayton school where John Scopes taught was a minor topic, students were bringing home accounts of origins at odds with what they were learning at home and in their churches. William Jennings Bryan was the first great champion of the idea that taxpayers should not have to fund schools that undermined their values.

Evolution in the Public Schools: A Recipe for Atheism and Moral Anarchy?
The public schools have remained the primary battleground for the origins controversy, particularly in the courts where endless challenges to the teaching of evolution have been launched by local school boards from Pennsylvania to Louisiana and California. Anti-evolutionary pundits like Phillip Johnson have charged the public schools with promoting atheism in the name of science, even suggesting that evolution is responsible for widespread moral anarchy of the sort we saw at Columbine.

Johnson is joined by crusaders like Ken Ham, the late Henry Morris, John Ankerberg, the late D. James Kennedy, Anne Coulter, and others who claim, as earnestly as any Old Testament prophet, that evolution is the basis for Nazism, homosexuality, rising divorce rates, pornography, drug addiction, socialism, atheism, and every other imaginable ill. School children are supposedly being taught to think of themselves as meaningless assemblages of molecules with no more purpose or meaning to their existence than the pencils in their desks.

These hyperbolic claims should raise our eyebrows. They certainly raised mine. Having known schoolteachers for all my life, from my sainted mother, to my sister and brother-in-law, to all the teachers I had in public school, to my countless students studying to become teachers, and so on, I simply could not imagine that any public school teacher anywhere would teach any of these things. These peculiar ideas are not in the textbooks; they are not natural extensions of evolutionary theory; they are very unlikely to be a part of the worldview of the teachers—so why are Johnson and Ham claiming children are being indoctrinated with these ideas? Do they know something we do not?

Research Reveals the Rhetoric is Wrong
My intuition gave rise to a modest research project a few years ago. My student, Tim Johnson, and I looked at the public school curriculum in Quincy, Massachusetts. Quincy schools, located on the bulls-eye of America’s bluest state, are hardly restrained by local conservatism and far beyond the reach of the creationists. There is thus no reason to suspect that public schools are constrained by any pandering to the foes of evolution.

As we expected, our examination of the textbooks and teaching standards, and our interviews with teachers confirmed that evolution was being taught with thoughtful and careful consideration of the concerns of the students. Religious issues were addressed directly in the classrooms and students were assured that evolution did not rule out belief in God as Creator. No doubt the imaginary wall between church and state was repeatedly breached by Quincy’s conscientious educators.

Our study, summarized in the article “The Teaching of Evolution in Public School”, concluded that there was “no evidence that public school teachers in Quincy are exacerbating tensions with students and parents in the way that evolution is presented; indeed, most of them are expending energy in minimizing such tensions…Quincy public school teachers are appropriately sensitive to the religious backgrounds of their students.”

We concluded there was no basis whatsoever for Johnson’s charge, in "Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds", that American educators have chosen to “tell the people that all doubts about naturalistic evolution are inherently absurd … and that their silly misgivings will be allowed no hearing in public education.”

Our research suggested exactly the opposite, and I suspect that this inference could be extended to the majority of public school systems in America. Anti-evolutionary pundits like Johnson and Ham are simply wrong. They are little more than shrill demagogues pretending to fight imaginary foes and selling lots of books in the process. Quincy public schools nowhere teach students that they are the result of “a mindless evolutionary process.”

The Theological Challenge for Evangelicals
This is not to say, however, that all is well and that evolution can be comfortably harmonized with traditional religious understandings. It is one thing to note that evolution need not exclude God as creator and quite another to show exactly how creation and evolution are to be harmonized. In "Saving Darwin: How to Be a Christian and Believe in Evolution", published this month by HarperOne, I offers some tentative suggestions in this direction. But this harmony comes with a price that many evangelicals may be unwilling to pay—the loss of some key aspects of the traditional creation story.

I suggest in Saving Darwin that we must abandon the historicity of the Genesis creation account. Adam and Eve must not be thought of as real people or even surrogates for groups of real people; likewise the Fall must disappear from history as an event and become, instead, a partial insight into the morally ambiguous character with which evolution endowed our species. Human uniqueness is called into question and we must consider extending the imago dei, in some sense, beyond our species. These are not simple theological tasks but, if we can embrace them, I think we may be able to finally make peace with Darwin’s Dangerous Idea.

There is a lot of work to be done. Evangelical churches have typically been unwilling to confront this topic—except to run off evolutionists like Howard Van Till when they become controversial—and it will be a great effort to reorient the teaching ministry of the church to bring it into alignment with the generally accepted ideas of modern science. But only when this task has been accomplished can we declare the war in the public schools to be over.

Et Tu Tony? A Critique of Tony Campolo’s attack on "Darwinism"

Tony Campolo is a prophetic voice in the Evangelical community, prophetic in the sense of the ancient Hebrew prophets who challenged the Israelites to care for the poor and to "act justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with their God" – not prophetic in the modern sense like, for example, the quackery of Pat Robertson or the wacky “prophecies” of Oral Roberts. And like the Hebrew prophets, Campolo’s voice is often unwelcome in large parts of the religious community in which he participates. I don’t always agree with what Campolo says (for example his “red-letter Christians” initiative - see a good critique here on John Stackhouse’s blog) but he is inspiring and a man of integrity.

So it is sad to see Campolo miss the mark so badly in his recent op-ed in the Philadelphia Inquirer. In an article entitled The Real Danger in Darwin is not Evolution, but Racism (HT: Ed Darrell) he lashes out at … well, possibly the science of biological evolution, possibly an ill-defined metaphysic of “Darwinism”, or maybe even Charles Darwin himself – the focus of his attack is unclear. I suspect that Campolo wanted to highlight that all of humanity enjoys a special place in God’s creation, and that ideas that deny this can be dangerous. It is commendable that Campolo strongly defends this important truth about human dignity. However, in my opinion, his argument is presented so badly that it probably does more damage than good.

A) Positive Aspects of Campolo’s Argument

First the positive: In the past (for example here) (HT: Stephen Matheson), Campolo has parroted standard anti-evolutionist claims that “Evolution is just a theory”. However, in the current op-ed he does not question the scientific evidence for biological evolution, and even states that “in terms of science, Darwin’s account may be solid indeed”. Secondly, he states, in opposition to YEC claims, that “the development of biological organisms over eons of time really does not pose the great threat to the dignity of our humanity”. Thus he is not insisting on a rigorously literal interpretation of scripture, an interpretation that itself can be damaging to the Christian faith. Finally, he concludes that there is an “infinite qualitative difference” between humans and that rest of creation. These are all great points, and could have been constructed into a useful argument against some of the unwarranted philosophical extrapolations to evolutionary theory being passed off as science (for example, the insistence that the biological connectness of humanity to other forms of life implies that we are nothing more than “gene machines”).

B) An Argument Gone Astray

Campolo, however, does not build a useful argument. Instead he repeats some of the most ill-informed and inaccurate anti-evolutionist claims. These include:

1. Darwin was a racist: Campolo claims that Darwin’s ideas are dangerous because they promote and support racism. This is simply not true. Campolo shows he grossly misunderstands Darwin by claiming that they do. At a minimum, Darwin was no more racist than most Christian Victorians, and as several commentators have shown, (see here, here, here, and here) he personally opposed racism and slavery.

2. Let only the strong survive: Campolo claims that Darwin wanted to abandon society’s weak. He states:

Darwin even argued that advanced societies should not waste time and money on caring for the mentally ill, or those with birth defects. To him, these unfit members of our species ought not to survive.

This is also false. These are the ideas of Herbert Spencer, not Darwin. Spencer took Darwin’s descriptive biological theory and created a prescriptive theory for human societies called Social Darwinism. (For a good overview from a Christian perspective on Social Darwinism and other extrapolations of Darwin’s ideas, see Evolution: From Creation to New Creation pages 51-64)

3. Darwin’s theories were complicit in the rise of Nazism: As Ted Davis has noted (HT: David), the relationship between Darwinism and Nazism is complex, and there is indeed some connection. However, the responsibility for this connection should not be laid on Darwin, nor should biological evolution be rejected because of Hitler’s madness. To paint Darwin and biological evolution with this brush is ludicrous. In fact, it may be just as accurate to say that Christian ideas were complicit in the rise of slavery and racism in the American south. Depending on your definition of Christian, and what facts you cherry-pick from history, this could well be true. However, slavery and racism should never be blamed on Christ or the Christian gospel. This too is ludicrous.

C) A Failure to Define this “Darwinism” that is so dangerous

I believe the central flaw in Campolo’s article is that he attempts to define “the real dangers of Darwinism” without in fact defining what he means by Darwinism – a word that can convey such a broad range of ideas that it has become almost useless except as a pejorative. Does Campolo mean Darwin’s writings? Does he mean the main scientific theories Darwin proposed (descent with modification through natural selection), or possibly the modern evolutionary synthesis that includes Mendelian genetics as well as other modifications to Darwin’s theories? Does he mean the extrapolations, and sometimes dramatic distortions, of Darwin’s theories outside of the field of biology (eg. Social Darwinism, Eugenics, and Evolutionary Psychology)? Or is he focusing his criticism on the (often atheistic) ideologies that claim all knowledge should be viewed through an evolutionary paradigm?

If by Darwinism Campolo means the latter of these options, then I would agree with his assertion that Darwinism can be dangerous. However, I’m sure that many (probably most) of his readers will interpret his use of Darwinism to be the scientific theory of biological evolution. And for this definition, Campolo’s claim is wrong. As I’ve discussed previously, there are no ethical implications to the scientific theory of biological evolution. It is a very good model for explaining the development of life on earth, but it provides no moral guidance (good or bad) for future human decisions.

It is important for Christians, as Ted Davis notes, to “Do one's best to separate science as science from science as grand metaphysical program”. (Allan Harvey’s proposal, that includes six different definitions for evolution and which I discussed here, makes the same point). We do not need to fear science. We should however, be leery when scientific theories are woven into grand meta-narratives that claim to explain the really big questions. These are questions that science is just not able to answer.

D) Conclusion

I have the utmost respect for Tony Campolo. His challenge to Evangelicals to take seriously our responsibility to the poor is sorely needed. We should all emulate his passion for defending the dignity of humanity, whether from racism or a denial of human spiritual uniqueness. But I believe his attack on Darwinism will be counterproductive. The easily refutable pieces of his argument may allow many to feel justified in also rejecting his implied conclusion: That humanity is created in the Image of God. More importantly, choosing between the “how” of human creation (biological evolution) and the “why” of human creation (to be the Image of God) is a false dichotomy. We are the Image because God declared it to be so, not because of how we were created. That is why each and every human being is important.

Addendum

Another addendum. I guess I have a defective blogging gene. I had seen Campolo’s original piece a couple days after it came out but didn’t find the time to put my thoughts together. Actually, that probably turned out for the better. Stephen Matheson provided his own reaction, and a very interesting discussion ensued between him and David Opderbeck. Reading this (unfortunately after the discussion was over) helped clarify my own thinking. So thanks guys for the provocative (and spirited) discussion.

Polkinghorne Quotes #7: Rejecting Process Theology

Polkinghorne is often accused of accepting and promoting Process Theology (PT). This theology, initially developed by Alfred Whitehead in the early 20th century, proposes that God is neither omnipotent nor directly active in his creation. To most Evangelicals, PT is heretical as its view of God can not be reconciled with the God revealed in scripture. I agree that PT is unacceptable but I strongly disagree that Polkinghorne subscribes to PT. Anyone who believes otherwise has badly misunderstood what he is saying.

God’s Omnipotence

PT rejects the possibility of an omnipotent God. To fulfill his divine purpose, God’s power is limited to persuasion. The PT divinity is a cajoling, pleading supplicant desperately trying to save his creation from itself. Thus the problem of theodicy is resolved but only by rejecting the God of the resurrection, the God who can, and will, “make all things new”. But this impotent God is not the God that Polkinghorne describes. Here is what he says in Science and Christian Belief, page 81

God remains omnipotent in the sense that he can do whatever he wills, but it is not in accordance with his will and nature to insist on total control.

The view that Polkinghorne describes is clearly not the PT God; it is in fact the God revealed in Jesus Christ who: "made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death— even death on a cross! (Phil 2: 7, 8)

God’s Action

PT insists that either God has no power to intervene in creation, or is morally obligated not to intervene. After all, if you intervene once, why not intervene all the time to prevent evil? But the God of the Bible is certainly a God of action, something that Polkinghorne strongly affirms.

Christian theology cannot do without a God who acts in the world by more than simply keeping it in being, for it looks to the One who brought Israel out of Egypt and raised Jesus from the dead. Science and Providence, page 43

Given the insights of modern science, we must indeed rethink and rearticulate our view of divine action; the old view of a constantly intervening divinity is inadequate. At best, it reduces God to a slightly inept divine tinkerer, at worst it implies he is some sort of cosmic tyrant. But it is not necessary to swing so far towards PT. As Polkinghorne states in Science and Christian Belief, page 80

One is trying to steer a path between the unrelaxing grip of a Cosmic Tyrant and the impotence or indifference of a Deistic Spectator. I believe process theology to be impaled on the impotent branch of the horn of the dilemma.

The dilemma is real - articulating a model for divine action is indeed difficult. However, I believe Polkinghorne’s ideas are some of the most helpful ones we have. For Evangelicals to accuse him of being a Process Theologian because of God’s self imposed limits on divine action is grossly unfair and unreasonable, just as unfair and unreasonable as accusing him of being a hyper-Fundamentalist because of his insistence that God can act, has acted, does act, and will continue to act in order to fulfill his divine purpose.

Other Polkinghorne Quotes: [Introduction] [Previous] [Next]

Made in God’s Image or Evolved from Apes?

Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground." So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. Genesis 1: 26, 27

For many Evangelicals, human evolution simply cannot be reconciled with our creation in the image of God. Evolution seems theologically dangerous because it implies a close biological connection between humans and animals. An acceptance of evolution, it is feared, leads inevitably to the acceptance of a shared spiritual nature between humans and animals. Thus it logically follows that we must grant a spiritual nature to animals, or we must conclude that humans do not have a spiritual dimension. Neither of these positions is compatible with orthodox Christianity. However, I do not believe that this dichotomy is warranted by the biblical account of man’s creation in the image of God.

In facing this potential dilemma, it would be helpful if we had a clear understanding of what exactly “The Image” means in Genesis 1:27. Unfortunately, its meaning is somewhat ambiguous. That it is a unique quality given by God to man is clear; what that quality entails is unclear as biblical interpreters do not agree on its meaning. There are three interpretations that are most common. First, it could mean the mental and spiritual faculties that humans share with God, for example, reason, free will, and self-consciousness. Second, it could mean God’s divine representative on earth. This interpretation is supported by the mandate to care for God’s creation recorded in Gen 1:26 & 28. Third, it could mean man’s ability to relate to God. For myself, any of these interpretations (or maybe all of them) could be correct.

If the exact meaning of the word image in Gen 1:27 is unclear, what “the image” describes is not. The image describes what we as humans are; it does not describe how we were created. It says absolutely nothing about the process of God bestowing man with unique qualities and a unique position on earth. The entire process is described in a single word: created. Thus the writer of Genesis is clear on “who” brought the process about, and for what purpose, but is unconcerned with the materials (if any) that were used to create.

The second account of the creation of man (Gen 2:7) does provide some additional details to this creation. Man is shaped from dust. Just as God knits or shapes us in our mother’s wombs (Ps 139), so God shaped the first man. Man is not created out of thin air, in a puff of magic, but is lovingly moulded from common, useless dirt. So since the bible describes our original material as being dust, why should a creation process that includes intermediary animal states be theologically dangerous? Original material is not a problem with God whether for a physical creation or for a spiritual one.

I believe that evangelical opposition to evolution from pre-existing animals has just as much to do with pride as with a desire to defend traditional interpretations of scripture. We focus more on our spiritual characteristics than our creaturely characteristics. In other words, we view ourselves as closer to God (because we share a spiritual dimension) than to animals (with whom we share the characteristic of being creatures of God). This is the same type of pride that Moses warned the Israelites about:

“It was not because you were more numerous than any other people that the LORD set his heart on you and chose you--for you were the fewest of all peoples. It was because the LORD loved you and kept the oath that he swore to your ancestors, that the LORD has brought you out with a mighty hand, and redeemed you from the house of slavery, from the hand of Pharaoh, king of Egypt (Deut. 7:7-8).

The Israelites were “The Chosen” because God chose them, not for any inherent quality they possessed. And this bundle of molecules, genes, cells, and organs we call ourselves is the image of God because he bestowed it upon us, not because it is a particularly noteworthy bunch of molecules, genes, cells, or organs. As Jesus indicated, God could easily have called on other parts of creation to serve and worship him. (Luke 3:8, Luke 19:40).

Although biological evolution does not, in my opinion, challenge traditional interpretations of who we are as humans, our relationship to God, and our mandate within God’s creation, it certainly does challenge traditional notions of how this relationship with God came about, how the relationship was damaged, and possibly, how the spiritual & physical interact.

• If modern Homo sapiens gradually developed from earlier hominids over hundreds of thousands of years, at what point was God’s Image bestowed on humanity? And does this imply that the “first human” had non-human parents who did not share the image of God?
• At what point does “sin” enter the world? At what point does violence change from basic animal survival instincts to breaking God’s moral law?
• With new evidence from the world of neuroscience, should we even speak of the human “soul” or is this concept simply a vestige of ancient Greek philosophy that so clearly influenced western traditions including the early Church fathers? Are there better ways of describing and explaining our unique spiritual nature?

These are still somewhat uncomfortable & perplexing questions for me. Although I now have a greater appreciation for how some Evangelical Christians come to terms with these questions, my own answers are still very much early in the conceptual stage. The answers fit into what I believe is a self-consistent theological framework that is supported by the biblical record. However, there are enough gaps in this framework right now that I’m not able to clearly articulate it even to my own satisfaction.

But these questions on the origins of humanity, sin, and the image of God do not change the fact of who we are right now. Nor do they change how we should relate to God or how we should carry out our mandate. We are, as Graeme Finlay asserts, Homo divinus, the Ape that bears God’s image.

Recommended Reading:

• Genesis 1 – 15 (Word Commentary), by Gordon Wenham: An excellent commentary on the initial chapters of Genesis from an well respected Evangelical scholar including a particularly useful overview of the interpretation of “The Image” in Genesis 1

Literal or Liberal: Our only choices for interpreting the Bible?

Beware. That first step on the slippery slope to Liberalism can be very dangerous. So goes the warning to Evangelicals trying to broaden their intellectual horizons. And compromising on a literal view of scripture is seen as the most dangerous step of all. So how can Evangelicals accept modern scientific theories of origins that seem to directly contradict the literal scriptural account of creation in Genesis? If we compromise on the literal interpretation of scripture, isn’t this a sell-out? Aren’t we left with relativistic hermeneutic rules that allow us to make the bible say anything we want? If it’s not a literal interpretation, isn’t it a liberal one? I believe this choice between a liberal and literal interpretation of scripture, like the choice between creation and evolution, is a false dichotomy. In the latter case we can accept both; in the former case we need choose neither.

Evangelicals have been at odds with liberal Protestantism since the 19th century when the Liberals, claim Evangelicals, “sold out” to biblical criticism. Liberals for the most part accepted modern biblical scholarship, including radical new understandings of the bible’s source, formation, and interpretation. Evangelicals strongly rejected both the conclusions and the evidence of this modern scholarship. In the 19th century this defense included the definition of the doctrine of biblical inerrancy. More recently the focus has been on the “literal” interpretation of scripture. Even though I disagree with the Evangelical tendency to reject the evidence of biblical criticism and modern biblical scholarship, and the movement's outright hostility to liberalism, I am unquestionably in the Evangelical camp on the place of the scriptures. I take a very high view of the bible and wholeheartedly acknowledge its divine inspiration. My concern is that in reacting to a Liberal interpretation of scripture Evangelicals have chosen a method (ie. Literal interpretation only) that may be just as theologically damaging (heretical?) as the Liberal method.

Not so Literally Literal

Though many Evangelicals claim that they hold a “literal” view of scripture, very few are uncompromising literalists. Very few still believe that the earth is a flat, immovable disk floating on the ocean, even though this is what the ancient Hebrews biblical writers believed and implied in scripture (See Psalm 93:1, Psalm 104, and 1Chr 16:30). Neither do we believe that the sky is a solid dome like structure, which is the logical conclusion based on a literal interpretation of the Old Testament. Almost everyone agrees that the earth revolves around the Sun, even though the ancient Hebrews thought the Sun moved across the sky and then raced back to east to start another day. (See Psalm 19:6 and Eccl 1:5). Very few Christians maintain that a literal interpretation of these passages is required. Young Earth Creationists do claim to interpret the bible literally, but they do so in a very liberal way. (One commentator described flat-earthers, geocentrists, and young-earthers as the conservative, moderate, and liberal factions within the biblical literalist camp).

Focus on Science and History

When someone declares that they interpret the Bible literally, they are generally referring to the science and the history in the bible. I think this betrays a modern bias, where historical and scientific facts are the highest form of truth. Modern western culture has elevated historical and scientific knowledge to the point where other forms of knowledge are deemed less important, and less reliable. But this is not the perspective of the bible. To the wise man or woman, it is the knowledge of God that is important.

The bible does contain history. It provides narrative accounts of real historical events that were part of God’s ongoing work with his people. In fact, recent biblical scholarship demonstrates that the bible faithfully represents ancient history as defined by the people of that time, and is not, as claimed by some biblical scholars, a much more recent historical fabrication. But we should be careful not to judge an ancient view of history by modern historiographical standards. The bible also contains a type of science since scripture describes how God’s creation worked. However, these scientific ideas are ancient, not modern. We may call these ideas outdated, or even wrong, but that does not compromise the authority of the scripture to speak in matters of faith or practice. The historic view of the church fathers (eg. Clement and Augustine) and reformers (eg. Calvin, Luther) was that God accommodates his message to humanity through the scriptures. That is, the bible is the revelation of an unlimited God accommodating himself to limited humanity using humanity’s limited language and ideas. The bible uses some of these scientific ideas to communicate God’s message, but it never tries to teach science.

Science and history may be contained in the scripture, but these are not the point of scripture. The purpose of the written Word is to reveal God’s message to humanity, and not to provide a complete history of the world. Its purpose is to reveal how God works in the lives of his people, and not how God’s creation works. I believe that by insisting that all scriptural narratives be interpreted “literally” we not only depart from the traditional view of the church fathers and protestant reformers, but we make the bible say things it was never intended to say. By focusing on the literal interpretation of scripture, we may be missing the meaning of God’s message, even as the Pharisees focus on the letter of the Law, missed its spirit by a very wide margin.

What’s really important?

The important difference between an Evangelical and Liberal understanding of scripture is not a literal versus non-literal interpretation, but rather in the area of revelation. While Evangelicals view scripture as God’s self-disclosure to man, Liberals view scripture as man’s search for God. Therefore, in a Liberal view, the bible is certainly a holy book. However, its source is not divine revelation, but man’s yearning for the divine. The focus then is on human experience throughout history, and the meaning achieved from human interaction with the divine or divine ideals. For an Evangelical, the focus of the bible is on God’s plan of redemption. Jesus death is the culmination of this plan, and his resurrection is the final victory over death. These historical events are the source of meaning for man; it is not man’s experience that gives meaning to the events. The Liberal focus on the human aspect of the bible to the exclusion of the divine, not only misses the point, but by removing the source of life, sucks the life out of the Living Word.

Scripture: Both Human and Divine

On the other hand, the Evangelical focus on the divine source of scripture can lead us to minimize or ignore the fact that the bible is also a very human book. It is God-breathed, not God dictated. Evangelicals have spent an enormous amount of energy trying to understand what divine authorship, inspiration, and guidance really mean, and the implications of this divine source. The simple fact remains that many different human authors wrote the bible, authors with human limitations and human ideas, all living within cultural contexts and using literary conventions very different than our own. God accommodated his message to specific ancient cultures; he met them where they were and revealed himself in a manner that was understandable to them. Just because God accommodated his message to specific human cultures at specific times in history, using scientific and cultural ideas specific to that time, does not reduce the power of this message or the truth of his revelation.

Thus the bible needs to be recognized as having both a divine and human source, not as liberals would claim, a human-only source with a divine message, or as Evangelicals often imply, a divine-only source to a human audience. The early church grappled with the divinity and humanity of Christ, and concluded that neither a divine-only description nor human-only description was adequate. We agree that the “Word made flesh” is both fully human, and fully God, even though this seems to defy logical understanding. Why then does an acknowledgement of the humanity of the textual Word threaten or lessen the divine origin of the scriptures? God condescended to take on human form, experienced all the limitations of a human mind and body, spoke in ways standard for a specific local culture, and used the science of his day to communicate his message of love, forgiveness, and redemption. In the same manner, God also accommodated his message in the written word.

Conclusion

I believe that remaining faithful to the scriptures does not require us to interpret it literally in all cases. A non-literal interpretation does not minimize the truth and authority of the word. In some cases, it is surely the more faithful method of remaining true to the biblical message. This is definitely not always the case and we need to be careful in jumping to figurative conclusions, especially when they fit more nicely with what we want the bible to say. What the bible shows very clearly is that God will not limit his revelation to a single culture. Every culture has had its assumptions challenged as God gently, and sometimes not so gently, leads his people to the truth. We need to ensure that our theology does not lead us to interpretations of the text, but that the text leads us to the formation of our theology. Our theology should not limit us to literal (or figurative, or symbolic, or mythic!) interpretations of any text, including our interpretations of the creation accounts.

Some recommended Reading:

• “Authority and Interpretation of the Bible: An Historical Approach” by Donald McKim and Jack Rogers: This book was very influential in my own re-evaluation on how scripture should be interpreted. It showed that the “conservative” view of scripture held by most Evangelicals was not really “conserving” the authority of scripture at all. Instead, this conservative view was a damaging, modern innovation.
  
• “Biblical Literalism: Constricting the Cosmic Dance” by Conrad Hyers: A more forceful and impassioned criticism of literalism. A romp of a read.
  
• “Beyond Liberalism and Fundamentalism: How Modern and Postmodern Philosophy Set the Theological Agenda” by Nancey Murphy: A personal top-10 of mine. Excellent historical overview of the formation of liberal and fundamentalist theology, what separates the two camps, and in what ways they are very similar.
  
• “The Heresies of American Evangelicalism, Part V: Holy Scripture” at The Fire and Rose Blog. So you think Liberals are Heretics? Wait until you look closely at an Evangelical view of scripture.
  

Does Evolution drive us to reject Evolution? One Evangelical says … Possibly?

One argument heard repeatedly from antievolutionists is that Darwin and his theory of biological evolution is to blame for so much evil (eg. Nazism, the Holocaust, Stalinism). This is as absurd (and possibly dishonest) as saying that Jesus Christ and his message of the new kingdom should be blamed for the crusades, the inquisition, and the conflict in Ireland. True, the facts can be twisted to support any of these claims. However, I believe an honest assessment of the authentic message of Christ or the theory of Darwin (rather than distorted or extended versions of them) should not come to these conclusions. Just as the violence resulting from the crusades should not be blamed on the Prince of Peace, the evils (or perceived evils) associated with Social Darwinism or Eugenics should not be blamed on Darwin’s theory of biological evolution.

Evolutionary Psychology (EP) is another stepchild of Darwin’s theory. It has received (if this is possible) even less support within the Evangelical community than the theory of biological evolution. It is an approach to psychology that attempts to explain mental and psychological traits as adaptations, i.e. as the functional products of natural selection. So for example, some EPs hypothesize that humanity’s innate religious tendencies and it's inclination to believe in God are only a result of natural selection. It’s pretty easy to see that EPs can make assumptions, employ methods, and draw conclusions that no Christian could condone. But does this mean the entire field should be ignored and rejected by Christians?

A reader pointed me to this blog post by Albert Mohler, the president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. In it, Mohler discusses a proposal by 2 Yale EP researchers. They claim that evolution has hardwired us to disbelieve evolution. Ie. The fact that the theory of biological evolution does not receive widespread support is more a function of our psychological makeup, rather than the perceived conflict between the scientific theory and religious beliefs. Mohler states:

This is a fascinating argument. Bloom and Weisberg [the Yale researchers] believe that the minds of children are, in effect, hard-wired to see design in nature and the world around them. The "intuitive psychology" they describe means that children infer a design in the world they experience. They assume an intelligence behind what they observe, and assume that a creative intelligence is a necessary part of any explanation of why things are as they are.

and then quotes the researchers as follows:

Just as children's intuitions about the physical world make it difficult for them to accept that the Earth is a sphere, their psychological intuitions about agency and design make it difficult for them to accept the processes of evolution.

In the discussion that follows in his post I find it interesting that both the researchers and Mohler seem to make the identical assumption: It’s either “design” or “evolution” and not both; either there is “purpose” to the universe or the “scientific theory of evolution” is true. The researchers choose evolution and Mohler chooses purpose but they both believe the choice is valid. I disagree with both of them. I see no conflict and do not think it is an either/or choice. This discussion on design or evolution will have to wait for a future post, but I would like to point out that even some Intelligent Design (ID) proponents would agree that Design and Evolution are not necessarily opposites. For example, Michael Behe, writer of Darwin’s Black Box, does not oppose common descent of life from a single source.

Later in the post, Mohler states:

The hard-wiring for design these psychologists identify as the problem may well be yet another sign of the imago Dei -- the image of God that distinguishes humanity from all other creatures

I wholeheartedly agree with this. God has created us in his own image (I believe through a gradual creation process) and part of this package is the ability, and inherent yearning, to relate to God. But Mohler then continues with:

[The Imago Dei is a] claim directly rejected by the scientific establishment.

I’m not sure I can agree with this. There are certainly large parts of the scientific establishment that a) reject the existence of the supernatural and b) believe that scientific truth is the only truth. But there are many scientists (including, I think, all Christian scientists) that would reject this statement (particularly statement b) and understand that science is quite limited in what it can positively affirm.

And then near the end, Mohler throws out this statement:

[The Yale Researchers] argument also shows once again why "theistic evolution" is an incoherent proposal.

Theistic evolution incoherent? Really? Maybe incomprehensible to some, particularly to those with specific metaphysical assumptions, but I think it’s unwise to call it incoherent. There are many clear thinking Christians, brilliant scientists, astute theologians, all with a high respect for the scriptures, that believe theistic evolution coheres very well with both their science and faith. (For example, read anything by John Polkinghorne. Is it difficult to understand the first time through? Definitely. Incoherent? Anyone who says this probably hasn’t grasped his argument and should reread him). Proponents of scientific naturalism (the idea that science embodies all truth) may not comprehend how their well-educated Christian colleagues can possibly hold to theistic evolution. Christians predisposed to reject gradual creation because of their interpretation of scripture may find it difficult to comprehend how their fellow Christians can believe in theistic evolution. However, this lack of comprehension does not make the proposal objectively incoherent.

I’m still not sure how to respond to a lot of the conclusions coming out of the field of EP. (I know even less about psychology and EP than I do about biology and biological evolution). However, I see no reason to immediately reject all conclusions that are made. Certainly, I do not think that evolutionary explanations for the development of religious impulses necessarily negate the validity of these impulses for discovering truth, nor does it contradict the fact that these religious impulses were the purpose of God’s creation. On the other hand, I reserve the right to be skeptical of conclusions about human nature without solid evidence, particularly when formulated by those who are predisposed to reject the existence of the divine, and thus humanity’s ability to relate to the divine.

So is natural selection a factor in humanity’s innate religious tendencies, in our inclination to believe in God, in our propensity to see purpose in creation? Possibly. How God brought about this inclination in humanity is not necessarily significant; that the emergence of this tendency was his purpose is significant. And returning to the original claim of the Yale researchers, does evolution play a role in the rejection of evolution? Again possibly. Certainly, if the scientific theory of evolution is tied so tightly to philosophical purposelessness, it’s going to be difficult for humanity to accept. God has created in us a heart that recognizes him (Rom 1:20), that is predisposed to respond to him, that see’s purpose in his creation. So purposeless evolution is certainly not an easy sell. But then again, I don’t think it should be. That the universe is purposeless is a lie. And as far as I’m concerned, it’s just not necessary to tie biological evolution to this lie.

Scripture or Science: Do we have to Choose?

What an awful choice. Do we actually have to choose between believing scientific claims and trusting in the bible? Can we trust the evidence readily apparent from our collective five senses? Or should we instead believe the knowledge provided by God through the divinely inspired authors of the scriptures? Is it really God’s word or the credibility of Science?

For many Evangelicals, “Scripture or Science” is not only a legitimate question, it is THE critical question with respect to science, and not actually a tough call to make. “No apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record,” affirms the statement of faith of the most prominent YEC organization “Answers in Genesis (AIG)”. They state unequivocally that our confidence must be placed in the knowledge provided by scripture, not that given by science. History, it is claimed, has spanned less than 10,000 years from the time of Adam to the present, and if atheistic scientists have different answers, they are severely mistaken or probably lying. The dating mechanisms used by scientists are fallible; the bible is not. Evolution is a wild theory built on extrapolations from only a few fossilized bones, and is synonymous with the term “missing link” because of its inability to demonstrate even a single change from one species to another over time. Science indeed may have some answers, but the typical Evangelical attitude is to treat it with suspicion.

However, we live in a world where the results of science are obvious and widespread. In the past few centuries western civilization has been revolutionized by breakthroughs in physics, chemistry, medicine, industrial engineering, and electronics to the point that day-to-day life would be virtually unrecognizable by even our great-grandparents. Although the benefits of the technology based on these scientific breakthroughs are sometimes debatable, there is no question that science “gets a lot of things right”. This causes tension for Evangelicals who have been told to “trust the bible over science”. If science “gets it right” so often (eg. we can put a man on the moon, perform heart transplants, clone sheep, and build nuclear power plants), why do entire fields of academia like anthropology and biology get it so wrong? What if they aren’t wrong? What if it is bible that is wrong?

This tension was very real for me growing up in a conservative Evangelical culture. I certainly felt apprehension as I approached high school courses in history and biology that taught ancient hominid development and evolutionary theory. What I learned was that science and early human history were something to be feared, something dangerous to faith, and something to be avoided. After those initial courses, I registered for no more classes in history or biology.

My intellectual and spiritual journey out of this fear has been circuitous and complicated. Maybe all journeys are. Now, more than 25 years after my first introduction to evolution, I no longer fear either history or science. In fact, I relish opportunities to immerse myself in both. And I do not believe I’ve had to abandon scripture to accept scientific consensus.

What I have concluded is that the choice between science and scripture is not only a false choice, it is a heretical choice, a choice that God hates. Far from defending the integrity of creation, I believe this “science or scripture” choice diminishes and demeans creation. God has revealed himself to us in both the book of his works (creation) and the book of his word (scripture). He wants us to understand both. We do not defend God by placing one book in opposition to the other. By doing this we are challenging his trustworthiness.

Evangelicals that compare fallible human scientific conclusions with the infallible word of God miss a significant point. Not only do fallible humans interpret scientific facts, they also interpret the bible. Just as fallible humans can misinterpret the evidence of creation, so too fallible humans can misinterpret the scriptures. God is the ultimate author of both creation and scripture and so the two books will be consistent and will not provide contradictory guidance. However, since humans interpret both of God’s books, using the tools of science and philosophy to interpret creation, and using the tools of theology and hermeneutics to understand scripture, there is the potential for conflict between a human understanding of the two books. It is the filters we use to perceive the truth that results in discord, and not an inherent disharmony between the two truths.

Part of our problem, I believe, is the Evangelical tendency to insist that everything must be simple, clear, and understandable. Unfortunately the bible is sometimes complex, ambiguous, and very difficult to understand. It was set in a culture that as foreign to us as ours would be to the ancient Hebrews. Thus, we have to deal with many seemingly contradictory concepts even when dealing only with the book of scripture. In the past, Christians have been able to resist the urge to ignore or abandon difficult scriptures that seem to contradict others. We may not completely understand God’s revelation in scripture, but that does not diminish its stature as God’s word.

For example, in the 2nd century, Marcion insisted that the Christian canon should not include the Hebrew Scriptures (the Christian Old Testament). He could not reconcile the God of love, compassion, and sacrifice revealed in Jesus Christ with the Hebrew God who, for example, ordered the genocide of the Canaanites in the days of Joshua. Later, during the reformation, Luther considered excluding the book of James from his New Testament since he felt it contradicted the theology of justification by grace alone. Christians resisted both of these urges and today our canon includes an eclectic group of writings, writings that sometimes seem to contradict each other, but all of which we maintain is God’s word. Why then do we insist that the evidence of God’s creation must be immediately discounted whenever it seems to contradict a possibly fallible interpretation of Genesis?

For Evangelicals, it is not a question about which of the two books we should read, but how we read them and in which order. Even though God’s revelation through his creation was initiated prior to his revelation through the scriptures, it is the bible that precedes creation from a theological point of view: that is, it provides a more direct revelation of God, his character and his plan. Nature should be read as a sequel to scripture. What we discover there should be put in the context of the theological framework we build from a careful reading of the scriptures. Sometimes we may need to wrestle with our interpretation of specific scriptures based on our findings in God’s creation. However, a theology built on nature must be dependent on a theology built from scripture, and not the other way around.

For example, we hear interpreters of science claim that creation has no purpose, that humanity’s existence is but an accident, and that nature demonstrates that the creator is cruel. If we only read the book of nature, this could be a reasonable conclusion. However, by first reading the scriptures, we understand that God is good, his creation is good, he has a purpose for creation, and humanity was created to be a steward of creation. We can thus conclude that although the data behind the scientific claims may be correct, the philosophical interpretations and extrapolations are not.

There are times however, when evidence from God’s creation can help highlight poor biblical interpretation. For example, the scientific evidence for an extremely old universe and earth is overwhelming. What then should we do with interpretations of scripture that claim the universe and earth were created less than 10,000 years ago? Some creationists have argued that the universe only appears to be old. Thus its “apparent age” is much older than its real age. The problem with this strategy is that it is difficult to determine where “apparentness” begins and ends. What is real, and what is only apparent? Is it only astronomical findings (age of the universe) and geological findings (age of the earth) that are “apparent”? What about human history? Can we trust anything that history tells us of past human cultures? Did God somehow mess with time at some point in the past? How do we know anything that science tells us is true? For example, maybe the Earth only appears to be round but is actually flat.

The logical inference of “apparent age” completely contradicts what we know of God and his creation. Creation is real, not some “Matrix-like” illusion. He is a loving God that has made a good, orderly, and understandable creation; he is not a deceiver that has created some type of prank on humanity. His revelation, whether by creation or his word, is not something that is secret, available to only the chosen few who understand what is real, “Gnostics” with a monopoly on true knowledge. His revelation is for all, whether that be the message of redemption in scripture, or the message of creation. Thus, in this instance, the book of God’s works should guide us to look more closely at his word in Genesis. Just as creation provides the possibility for unbelievers to acquire some knowledge of God (Rom 1:20), we need in humility to accept that God, through his creation, can also guide Christians to rethink erroneous assumptions about scripture.

So this choice, science or scripture, is completely unnecessary. In fact, we need to honour both scripture and science since they both come from God. If we study science with discernment & integrity, and study the scriptures with the same level of discernment and integrity, I believe we can find harmony. Unfortunately, the interpretation of both is often done without the required level of discernment or integrity, and perceived contradictions result. Sometimes agreement is found only because the interpretation of both is abused. But that is a post for another day.

"Is it farther to Vancouver or by Bus?” and other silly questions

Come on. Make a choice. This is a simple black and white question. It’s one or the other. Either it’s farther to Vancouver or it’s farther by Bus. Quit asking qualifying questions like: “Are we starting this journey in Toronto or Victoria?” or “What is the distance via rail vs. the distance via the highway”. And don’t tell me the question itself is ridiculous. That would only demonstrate you do not trust Bus travel. Stop pulling out your map of Canada. Do you actually trust that map designed by the anti-bus association? Do you even believe in the authoritative King James bus route map? Maybe you aren’t a real bus rider after all?

In the Evangelical community the choice is almost always framed as evolution or creation – one or the other. Either God created life in all its diversity, or life came into being via the mindless, purposeless mechanisms of evolution. It’s a choice between the authority of the bible (God created) and the authority of the scientific community (life evolved). Unfortunately, this is the way the choice is also framed by the popular media. Hardly a week goes by without the appearance of a “Creation versus Evolution” article in a major newspaper or magazine.

This, in my view, is an entirely false dichotomy. Creation and evolution are not mutually exclusive concepts. On the question of origins, creation answers the “who” and the “why” of the formation of life, and of humanity in particular. It was God who created the universe, earth, life, and a spiritual species called humanity, a unique species to love him, worship him, and care for his creation. Evolution on the other hand (along with cosmology and geology) is a scientific framework based on the evidence that describes the “when” and the “how” of God’s creation. Apparently God is content to take a very, very long time to complete his work, and to utilize a method that, by modern engineering standards, seems wasteful and inefficient.

Evolution does raise many legitimate questions for orthodox Christians who take seriously the authority of scripture. How can the billions of years required by evolution be reconciled with the chronology in Genesis? If evolution explains the mechanisms so well, is there room for God in the process? Did he just start things off and disappear? If God slowly molded us in his image, using pre-existing creatures, at what point in history does this image occur? How does the central story of the fall fit into the story of evolution? If countless creatures lived and died, and if a multitude of species went extinct long before the arrival of humans, how can we seriously connect human sin as the root cause of pain and death? How does evolution fit in with our eschatological hope of resurrection? These are tough questions and ones we must wrestle with.

However, just because evolutionary theory provides details of the “how” and “when” of human origins, this does not mean we need to abandon our answers to “who” and “why”. We may need to reevaluate some of our ideas connecting the “who” and the “how”, but assenting to creation does not automatically imply a “no” to evolution. Agreeing with evolutionary theory does not automatically imply a “no” to creation. The answer to one is independent from the other. To insist that the mechanism of evolution is equivalent to the absence of God is illogical, as silly as forcing a choice between a destination and a mode of transportation.

Over the coming months in this blog, I’ll be examining some related choices that have been articulated by some Evangelicals, choices I believe are also false dichotomies. These include the following:

• Scripture or Science: we must trust the infallible word of God or a fallible scientific interpretation of nature
• Literal or Liberal: Scripture must be interpreted literally or we must accept a “Liberal” view of scripture that eliminates the divine as its source.
• Design or Evolution: Either God in his sovereignty designed the universe, the earth, and life in all its diversity, or it came into being via mindless and purposeless evolution through blind chance.
• Anti-evolution or Pro-atheism: We must either vigorously oppose all types of evolutionary origin explanations, or support godless naturalistic explanations for origins, and thus reject God as the source of creation.
• God’s Image or Primate progeny: Either God made us in his image, or we evolved from apes.
• Intervention or Absence: Either God’s actions must be described as an intervention in his creation, or he is absent from creation.

I believe all of these choices are flawed. None of us need face these theological catch-22s. I firmly believe that Evangelicals can support the scientific model of evolution, and remain faithful to the message of creation in scripture.

This is not simply mushy relativism, avoiding the hard choices, having our cake and eating it too. For Evangelical Christians, there are real choices. Do we acknowledge that scripture is God’s divine revelation to humanity? Do we trust it? Do we acknowledge the God of Love who is also the creator and sustainer of the universe? Maybe most importantly, do we believe, despite what modern science states is possible, that the resurrection is real, that it is the reason for our hope both for the present and the future? For me, overwhelming evidence that Christ did not rise from the dead would dramatically affect my faith; overwhelming evidence that creation is ancient and that humanity is the product of evolution has not detracted from my faith at all. In many ways it has enhanced it.

And if I ever go to Vancouver by bus, I’ll let you know how far it is.