Part V-How do we proceed from here?

In response to this question, I find that the best answer is broader than considering evolution alone. Christians have good reason to keep informed about what their children are being taught. When anti-religious positions or overtly atheistic or humanistic positions are presented as fact, the teacher and the school system should be challenged. However, I would suggest that this is a very rare occurrence. However, to object to the teaching of evolution as a scientific theory (all of which are provisional) is not likely to be productive and I believe doing so harms the cause of Christ more than helps.

Two reasons are usually given for opposing the teaching of evolution in the public schools: 1) It is scientifically unsupportable and 2) It unavoidably undermines belief in the Bible and fosters the religion of secular humanism. As I have outlined in previous posts, #1 is simply wrong. Please understand I came to this conclusion after being a creation science supporter, strictly because I had to study carefully in preparation for teaching this material at a college. This study demonstrated conclusively to me that evolution is a useful scientific theory and that creation science is scientifically (and religiously) unsound. Perhaps I seem arrogant to you in saying such things when there are a number of well-known creation science proponents who are also scientists and who have come to the opposite conclusion. I do not know how to make this point without sounding immodest, but I think it is an important, so I will tell you a little about my career. I have been working as an experimental biologist since 1980 (when I earned my Ph.D. in immunology), and my research has been funded by competitive grants from the federal government and private companies continuously since 1987. I am on the editorial boards of 6 scientific journals, including the leading journals in immunology and toxicology. I have published over 90 peer-reviewed papers. In contrast, I do not know a single creation science proponent who works as a scientist. Several have Ph.D. degrees, but some are in marginally related fields. They do not have to worry about scientific integrity, because they are not working as scientist. However, those of us who are working as scientists are obligated by our chosen profession and by our belief in the Bible, which teaches against bearing false testimony, to speak with integrity. I cannot say that evolution is an unsupportable theory without abandoning integrity.

The second point listed in the previous paragraph is also in error. Few public schools in states where the SBC has most of its members teach evolution at the K-12 level at all. They simply do not want the controversy. When evolution is taught, teachers generally go out of their way to teach it in ways that minimize conflicts with the Bible or religion. When I taught this topic in college, I introduced it by telling the students that I would be teaching evolution, because it is a reasonably good scientific theory about the NATURAL origins of life. However, I specifically told them that this does not preclude a role for God, but science is unable to establish or even investigate this role. Other professors I knew had a similar approach.

So, how does opposing evolution hurt the cause of Christ? It prevents almost all scientists from taking the gospel seriously, because the people most likely to present it to them have classified them as enemies to be shunned and hated. Of course, this is a small number of people. However, many people are taught evolution in college, and most professors do an excellent job of presenting compelling evidence confirmed by multiple methods (including dating) for evolution. The evidence is almost as overwhelming as the evidence that the earth orbits the sun, so teaching our youth that evolution conflicts with the Bible sets them up for an absolutely unnecessary spiritual crisis. When they learn that the evidence for evolution is not as inconsequential and error ridden as they have been taught, they may begin to doubt other things that they were taught. This is unnecessary, because the first two chapters of Genesis can be taken literally (Adam and Eve were real people and God created everything) and still be consistent with the occurrence of evolution. Stating that God could not create partly by using natural mechanisms like evolution is another way of saying, I do not believe God is sovereign. He can only create ex nihilo all at once, because that is the interpretation I prefer. Of course, that is not the only interpretation that is possible from a careful and literal interpretation of Genesis 1 and 2. It is important to note that, as I point out in previous posts, a current SBC seminary professor (remember, there are no liberals or moderates left among our seminary professors) supports the idea that Genesis is not intended as a strict chronology and that the issue of the length of days cannot be settled with certainty from the text.

Christians would do well to partner with public schools and to help them in every way possible. Community interest and volunteerism is sorely needed in almost all schools, and Christians should (more than anyone else) have a desire to serve. In addition, this would allow access and understanding of what is being taught. Christians should run for a position on the School Board. I live in a community where this has happened and where many leaders in the public school system are committed Christians. I cannot recall my children ever being taught anything to which I objected. It seems to me that we cannot possibly act as salt and light in our culture unless we infiltrate our culture, and the public schools are the one place where we can reach almost everyone. Christians should be the strongest supporters of public schools and should be involved in them in every way both to fulfill our role as servants and to insure that inappropriate content is challenged quickly and effectively.

There seems to be considerable interest in a resolution that was made at a recent SBC annual meeting calling on parents to withdraw their children from public schools. In the interest of full disclosure I should tell you that my mother, father, wife, and sister-in-law are or were teachers in public schools. I attended public schools. For various reasons, my wife has taught and my children have attended private schools. Thus, I would not criticize anyone who preferred home schooling or private school. However, to propose that all Southern Baptists withdraw their children from public schools suggests a selfish isolationism that Baptists have always avoided. Of course, parents are responsible for protecting their children and looking to their best interests. However, I am become convinced through experience that it is in the best interest of our youth to teach them by experience to evangelize and serve, wherever life takes them. My daughter attends a public high school and she is also an intern at our church, where she serves as minister to middle school girls. She has a positive witness and has invited many of her classmates to join her at church. Do you really believe that the best approach is simply to abandon those kids? Of course, it takes extra time and effort to teach our children to avoid temptations and to resist belief systems contrary to our own to prepare them for public schools. It takes constant involvement in their lives to insure that things are not taking a wrong turn, but surely the effort is worth it if they are able to share the gospel with even one classmate. One final thought. Choosing a private school to protect our children from negative influences is by no means foolproof. Every sin that can be found in public schools can be found in private schools, and private schools tend to be a good deal more sinful in areas like pride and haughtiness. I would prefer to see us take personal responsibility for protecting and preparing our children and raise them up in the way they should go; which would include fulfilling the great commission.

Part IV-Does interpreting Genesis 1 and 2 as figurative in some sense destroy the very foundation of Christianity (as expressed by Answers in Genesis and many individual believers)?

First, it should be made clear that interpreting the days of Genesis 1 as ages or eras is just as literal as interpreting them as 24 hr days. The Hebrew word (yom) can mean either an era or an age or a 24 hr day. In Genesis 2:5, it clearly means the era or age of creation, not a 24 hr day for all creation. It has been suggested by AiG that the word yom preceded by a numerical descriptor always refers to a 24 hr day. I doubt anyone has scoured all Hebrew writings from that era to determine if this is true, but it certainly is not true of other references to periods of time in the Bible. For example, the 70 weeks of Daniel, which is thought by most interpreters to refer to 70 weeks of years (1 day = 1 year) for a total of 490 years. In this case a unit of time preceded by a number is clearly symbolic and not literal. Thus, suggesting that there was enough time during the biblical creation account to accommodate the extreme age of the earth indicated by multiple lines of scientific evidence can be done without compromising a believe in biblical inerrancy and without compromising a generally literal interpretation of scripture.

The concern expressed by AiG and other is that if one begins to accept parts of the creation accounts as anything but absolutely literal, the whole foundation of the Bible falls like a house of cards. For example, Marty Duren posted a comment wondering whether I believed that Adam and Eve were literal or representative. I responded that I see no reason from scripture of otherwise to think this was not literal, so I accept it as literal. Although I do not need or even want scientific evidence for every claim of scripture, there is support for this particular literal interpretation. Analysis of mitochondrial DNA indicates that all human beings alive today are descended from a single woman (the scientists ever called her Eve). I believe the Fall was literal and spiritual. I think the biblical statement that there was no death before the Fall indicated spiritual death. Death is used in many passages in this way, and it is obvious that the basis of the Fall was disobedience to God, pride, and greed: all of these are spiritual flaws; so it would be reasonable that the punishment would be spiritual. Is the reference to all animals eating plants and not other animals literal? I do not know, and it seems to me that it doesn’t matter. However, if this is literal, it does not necessarily contradict evolutionary theory. Under that theory, herbivores developed before carnivores, otherwise the carnivores would have had nothing to eat. One can believe that Genesis is mostly intended literally and believe that every word is true and still accept a limited version of evolution. It is not a compromise to do so.

Insisting on a literal interpretation forces us to deny many many lines of evidence all of which support the validity of evolution. Even the chief proponent and inventor of Intelligent Design theory (Michael Behe) believes in a limited version of evolution. The evidence is truly overwhelming and denying it places us in the realm of irrationality or lack of integrity. Does this mean I value the authority of science over the authority of scripture? Not at all; heaven forbid. In cases where the meaning of scripture is absolutely clear and not subject to more than one reasonable interpretation, I accept scripture as true, whether or not science agrees or not. Science is always accepted on a provisional basis and is always subject to revision.

However, the Bible itself notes that nature can tell us something about God (e.g., Psalms 19:1). Almost all of us use this principle in the interpretation of passages like, “Fear before him, all the earth: the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved” (1 Chronicles 16:30). Other passages in Psalms express the same idea. The literal interpretation would be that the earth is literally still in space and does not move. However, I do not know any biblical inerrantists who believe this. They accept what we know about science as an indication that this is not the correct interpretation of these passages. The AiG web site addresses this issue using a convoluted argument indicating that the Catholic church had adopted the previous secular scientific view of an earth centered universe and this is the reason the church objected to the writings of Galileo in support of the heliocentric theory of Copernicus. Of course, no direct documentary evidence can be provided to support this speculation. Even it is true, the most literal interpretation of this passage would still indicate that the earth does not move, and because of our understanding of nature, we do not believe this. This is analogous to the situation with evolution.

Although the evidence for evolution may not be as utterly compelling as the evidence for heliocentrism, it is very strong. The great age of the earth is indicated by multiple types of isotope dating methods, which agree quite well. Cosmology adds evidence for great age by the observation of objects in space which are billions of light years distant (as measured by many different methods). Because the speed of light is constant, light reaching earth from that distance must have been created billions of years ago. Some have argued that God created the universe with an appearance of age as a test or trial. Think for a moment about the implications of this idea. First, the Bible clearly states that no temptation comes from God. Tests and trials may be permitted or actively implemented by God, but are there any examples from the Bible that any of them involved deception on the part of God? How can we possibly think that God would provide valid evidence of great age just to fool us? This would directly contradict other passages on the integrity of God and it would be contrary to His statement that He desires that no one should perish but all should be saved. It is difficult to understand how the idea that God created the universe with an appearance of age could be taken seriously.

A positive consequence of an old earth and involvement of evolution is that the apparent discrepancies between the sequence of events in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 is reconciled by dropping the insistence that they are both literal, chronological accounts. I believe they describe real events, but they are intended to be primarily a description of the spiritual origins of man and his relationship with God. I am not ashamed at all of the involvement of supernatural intervention in the creation process. There is no reasonable scientific explanation for the origin of life from non-living molecules. I believe God did this in a supernatural manner. When God breathed a soul into Adam and Eve, this was by necessity a supernatural act, because the soul is a supernatural entity. Supernatural intervention cannot be excluded by scientific methods, and there is nothing irrational about the biblical position that God created. However, the best indication from nature and the Bible is that God used both supernatural and natural mechanisms (which He also invented) to create.

Evolution is not inherently atheistic. It, like all other scientific theories and pursuits is materialistic. Yet Christians have never rejected science, per se. They have recognized that this materialistic approach to nature is effective and serves the good of man, and in fact allows us to fulfill God’s command to subdue the earth. The materialist character of science is not the result of some grand conspiracy among atheists of the world, it is the inevitable result of the limitations of science. The methods of science are only effective in dealing with nature, not the supernatural. This does not mean that science necessitates denying the supernatural. It simply is not useful in distinguishing the will of God, for example. Many writers (including Francis Schaeffer) believed that Christianity with our belief in a rational, predictable, consistent God allowed the development of science. I agree with that idea, and even now, Christians virtually all act as though only natural events occur in day to day life. Otherwise we would not hesitate to walk in front of a speeding care while praying for God to make an exception to the laws of physics for His own glory.

It was probably inevitable that there would be animosity between proponents of evolution and believers, when the first outspoken supporter of evolution (Huxley) was also vehemently opposed to religion. However, the Bible is not inherently incompatible with this theory. For example, one of the writers of the series of pamphlets from which the term fundamentalist is derived (The Fundamentals, A testimony to the Truth), pointed out that the Bible did not exclude the possibility of evolution (Science and Christian Faith, by James Orr). I have already pointed out that a prominent Southern Baptist theologian, though not necessarily supporting evolution, believes there are ample reasons to believe that Genesis 1 and 2 are not intended as a strictly chronological, historical document. In reality, believing that Genesis 1 and 2 are entirely figurative would not necessarily change anything that the average Southern Baptist believes about God and man. There are many passages to which this applies. Does it matter whether the flood of Noah was world wide or whether the world in scripture meant the known world? I cannot see how it would matter. The message is the same. So long as we are not proposing figurative interpretations because we deny the supernatural characteristics of God or because we regard the Bible to be just another book (with errors), such interpretations generally would not change matters of faith and practice or lead to doubts about the Bible or serve as a slippery slope to a higher critical approach to scripture. None of that has happened to me, and I am not the only one. When I taught at a Southeastern Conference public university, several of my faculty colleagues and I attended the First Baptist Church in our town. All of us accepted on a provisional basis a limited version of the theory of evolution, because it is the only sound scientific interpretation proposed to date for the evidence available. We all were active and had positions of service in the church (two were deacons) and we were as firm on inerrancy as anyone. Insisting that Genesis 1 and 2 must be interpreted as a literal chronological history with 24 hr days is keeping and will keep many people from seriously considering the gospel. If we correctly understand the Bible and science, they will never conflict, because the Author of both is God. I would suggest that the apparent and obvious internal conflicts in Genesis 1 and 2 (e.g., plants growing before the sun was created and the differences in sequence in chapter 1 and 2) are there purposely to indicate that it is not intended as literal chronological history. Are the proponents of an historical, chronological, and 24 hr day creation sure enough of that interpretation to risk the souls of people who have been well trained in science and who accept a provisional (scientific) version of evolution? Or is it possible that as Christians we simply do not value or care about all those “liberals” that we continually speak and think hatefully about? Even if this is the case, it is not necessary to be liberal to accept a provisional version of evolution. There are many conservative Christians who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible who do. Most of us do not insist that everyone accept our opinion, but we would prefer that others did not purposely stir up animosity between science and believers and thereby decrease the opportunities to reach our science oriented generation for Christ.

Part III-What are the consequences of the evolutionary wars?
Before beginning this section, I would like to reiterate that I believe in the inerrancy of scripture. I believe the Bible should be interpreted literally unless there are good reasons to believe that a literal interpretation is not intended. As I have explained and will explain further in this section, I believe Genesis practically screams out that it is not intended to be a chronological, literal, scientific account of creation.
Let’s begin with a broader question with regard to the potential impact of scientific creationism on believers. First accepting a rigidly literal interpretation of Genesis 1 & 2, then stating that science definitively supports this sequence of events is a fatally flawed paradigm. It mixes faith and science in a way that belittles both and obviates the advantages of both. Beginning with a fixed conclusion and seeking support is the antithesis of the scientific method. Science typically begins with a hypothesis, which is always provisional, and the purpose of the subsequent experiments or observations is to support or refute the hypothesis. If the creation scientists or intelligent design proponents are truly using the methods of science, they must be open to the possibility that findings will refute a sequence of events that they have made the foundation of their faith. In fact, if the creation scientists had been paying attention in a dispassionate, scientific way over the last 20 years, they would be unable to deny that many, many findings have been reported in peer-reviewed scientific journals that support evolution and refute some of the favorite objections of the creation scientists. For example, numerous fossils of transition forms have been identified, DNA sequencing has confirmed postulated relationships between present day organisms, an almost complete speciation event has been observed and its genetic mechanisms, and very human-like fossils have been found and dated by independent groups and methods to times as long ago as 1,000,000,000 years. Ignoring or explaining this evidence away is what prevents scientific creationists from being accepted by the scientific community. Although there are scientists with an anti-religion agenda, there are more scientists who are Christians. Their rejection of creation science and intelligent design is not fundamentally an anti-religion stand but a stand for the integrity of science. The other position expressed by some Genesis ultraliteralists is that God made the earth to appear billions of years old as a test or trial of some type. Certainly it is biblical to propose that God allows trials and temptations as a way of promoting the growth of His own. However, there is little biblical evidence that He uses trials to test those who have not yet believed. In fact, the idea that God would perpetrate a purposeful deception is so contrary to His character as described throughout the Bible that one has to wonder how this argument has ever been taken seriously by anyone. In summary, using science to bolster a particular interpretation of Genesis violates the rules of science and if it was done in a truly objective way so that it did not violate the principles of science, it would open the possibility of refuting the foundation of faith. It is a folly and it has always been a folly.
Opposition to evolution has caused some Christians to distort science, speak and write with less than complete integrity, and to subordinate faith to science. However, these are relatively minor problems compared to the most serious consequence of virulent opposition to evolution. It drives people, who would otherwise be receptive, away from Christ. Almost everyone who has been well-trained in science understands that there is a huge body of consistent evidence in support of evolution as a theory that explains some aspects of the origin of history of the development of organisms on earth. Therefore, comparing Christians who accept evolution in a limited provisional way to “useful idiots” as stated by Answers in Genesis on their web site, seems a strange way to win anyone who believes in evolution to Christ. The refer to Christians who accept evolution as a reasonable theory as “churchian compromisers”. Apparently, they haven’t noticed that in the prophecy of the 70 “weeks” in the book of Daniel, it is generally agreed that the weeks are composed of “days” that actually refer to a period of 1 year. Thus, the prophecy that God will provide mankind a way of reconciliation in 70 weeks ( = 490 years) matches perfectly with the period of time from the life of Daniel until the advent of Christ. Thus, there is a clear precedent for periods of time being used symbolically in the Bible (even when they have specific numbers associated with them, which is contrary to the assertion of AiG that periods of time associated with a specific number always refer to the literal period of time). No compromise of any kind is necessary to accept the Bible as entirely true and to accept the scientific validity of evolution in the proper sense of a scientific theory. In contrast, compromise of scientific integrity is required to support creation science. I do not think this is their intention, but AiG and their supporters have placed a narrow and demonstrably questionable interpretation of the Bible as more important than the souls that Jesus gave his life to save. They put such importance on their interpretation that they are willing to alienate non-believers who might otherwise be reached for Christ. Please try to see the perspective of a non-believer who is knowledgeable about science. These people here the vocal opposition to evolution and they know that creation scientists have either been extraordinarily incompetent as scientists or they have purposely continued to use arguments that they know to be scientifically invalid to bolster their interpretation of the Bible. Non-believers with integrity (and there are many of them) find it outrageous to consider a faith that causes people to be either irrational or purposely deceptive. I speak here not about theoretical situations that I imagine might exist. I know many people who fit this description precisely and who are no longer open to the gospel because of AiG and the message that they and similar groups spread. Even though I agree with the AiG folks that the tendency to be embarrassed about the supernatural acts described in the Bible is wrong both spiritually and intellectually, there must be better ways to fight it that will not alienate potential converts. In fact, there are better ways, as illustrated by the works of Francis Schaeffer who clearly delineated that faith is the only philosophically valid way to answer the big questions such as “how do we know we have meaning and purpose?”. Interestingly, Schaeffer had reservations about evolution, but his book on the subject is not a dogmatic critique the scientific aspects of the theory (which he apparently knew was beyond his expertise) but a discussion of regret about the way evolution has been misused by enemies of faith to promote the existence of a purely materialistic universe.
The flip side of this coin is also applicable. As dogmatic opposition to evolution by Christians can actually harm the cause of Christ, use of evolution by scientists or teachers to promote a humanist, atheist or agnostic agenda is also harmful to the cause of science. Although I disagree with believers who oppose evolution, I recognize that there are many of them (and I do not dislike them or refuse to cooperate with them in support of evangelism). Scientists should be acutely aware that the work that most of them do is funded by the public through revenue derived from their taxes. Therefore, the public has every right to express opinions about the types of research that are supported. I have never understood why some scientists seem to delight in expressing their condescending attitudes toward a large group of people who make their research possible. Many of these scientist use phrases like “certain” and “proved” and “fact” when they refer to evolution. This is both poor public relations and it is poor science. Science and the conclusions derived from it must always be provisional and subject to change when new data or new conceptual frameworks emerge. They also conclude that evolution is contrary to the Bible and that evolution thus disproves the Bible. Of course, that is not correct either. Evolution contradicts a particular ultraliteral interpretation of Genesis, but not interpretations that are more internally consistent with the Bible. It is interesting that the anti-religion scientists and the creation scientists agree precisely with regard to their interpretation of Genesis; they only differ on the validity of evolution as a theory. The most personally irritating attribute of many anti-religious scientists is their assumption, which is often stated explicitly, that people who oppose evolution are unsophisticated (or worse) and dangerous. I understand that evolution is a solid scientific theory, but I also understand that people who object to it being taught in a way that excludes any possible role for God have a legitimate concern. If religion is excluded from the classroom, then opposition to religion must also be excluded, because this in itself is a form of faith (God cannot be objectively disproved, so atheism requires faith). I know from experience that evolution can be taught in a way that is respectful to believers and leaves open a role for God in the process. It would be to the advantage of scientists and teachers to do this.
In summary, the use of science, if it is real science, to support an ultraliteral interpretation of Genesis carries with it the very real risk of forcing one to either admit that new evidence supports evolution and undermines his foundation for faith or to refuse to recognize reality. This is a mistake. It is not a harmless mistake that only has a negative impact on those who believe it. It prevents many people from coming to Christ. I wonder if virulent evolution opponents will enjoy facing those who they drove away from faith on the day of judgment and seeing their fate. Will it seem so important then to have been “right” about a disputable interpretation of Genesis?
The next section will address some of the concerns expressed by creation science supporters with regard to the supposedly negative consequences of interpreting Genesis 1 and 2 as being figurative in some sense.