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.
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.
posted by Stephen Pruett at 3:32 PM
4 Comments:
Stephen-
Do you believe that Adam and Eve were literal or representative?
Marty, I believe they were literal, and in fact scientests using mitochondrial DNA analysis (which is only contributed by the female to the next generation) have found evidence that all women currently alive today can be traced by to a single individual (they even called her Eve). Although these findings are somewhat controversial, this is very interesting. However, my tendency if to accept the Bible as literal unless there is a clear reason not to do so. Therefore, I would regard Adam and Eve as literal even if there was no scientific evidence for it. I believe God invented evolution as a way to produce pre-humans and then He supernaturally gave two of them (Adam and Eve) a soul, and the rest of us are descended from them. This had to be done supernaturally because the soul is a supernatural entity.
Thanks for responding. I find myself not in agreement, but at least you are attempting to reconcile science and scripture rather than jettisoning scripture in favor of science.
I'm also aware that many, many believing scientists favor some type of evolutionary process (Behe, Dembski, Sheaffer, etc), though I am not convinced of it.
The proponents of creation science have been quite successful in causing conservative Christians to believe that evolution is scientifically as well as biblically untenable. I could give you many, many examples if you want, but I hope you will accept my word that their understanding of science is either deeply flawed or they are being purposely deceptive in their arguments. I share the concern of many Christians of accepting evolution as THE explanation for the creation of human beings and the idea that this supports a strictly materialist philosophy. I accept evolution as a provisionally useful theory that explains many things in biology. My post-doctoral mentor, Claude Bennett, is famous among immunologists for his theory of how mammals code for millions of different antibodies without using a disproportionate percentage of the total DNA for this purpose. The explanation he proposed in 1965 was based on evolutionary theory, and 10 years later Tonegawa did studies (that later earned him a Nobel prize) demonstrating that Dr. Bennett was correct. One of the most rigorous tests for a theory in sicnece is whether the predictions it allows are correct.
By the way, I have no problem with people who disagree with me on this because they place the authority of Bible above the authority of science. I do too, and I'm a scientist! However, it is clear by the way all of us interpret the passages that state the earth shall not be moved, that we use science to interpret scripture a limited manner. Otherwise, we would still believe that the earth is the center of the universe and everything else moves around it. It seems to me that the first two chapters of Genesis are written in a way that begs us to seek extra guidance to interpret them.
You are exactly correct that I am trying to reconcile Genesis and science. I really have no choice. My understanding of science tells me that evolution is a good theory, and I am as sure it is correct as I am sure about most scientific theories. For me to deny this would be to abandon any sense of integrity. At the same time, I accept the Bible as inerrant. My only choice is to reconcile these two positions.
Post a Comment
<< Home