It seems to me that the major problem that many fellow believers have with evolution is based on a particular interpretation of scripture and on doubts about the scientific evidence. I would like to suggest that the scientific evidence is so strong that either God purposely created it to deceive us or evolution occurred, at least in a limited way.
I came to this conclusion 25 years ago, when I was faced with the prospect of teaching college Biology at a small Baptist affiliated college. I had become familiar with creationist writings of Henry Morris and others, but I thought I should do some additional reading before deciding how to approach evolution as a Professor many of whose students were preparing to be pastors. I wish I could summarize my findings here, but there is simply not space, and many excellent books have been published on this issue. The bottom line is that some of the arguments of the creationists are seriously flawed. Others are valid, such as the low probability of life developing by chance, but they are not powerful. Improbable events happen every day; just ask a lottery winner. In addition, the evidence for evolution was excellent in 1982, and it is much stronger now. Ignoring or reinterpreting this evidence as not indicating evolution requires wholesale abandonment of natural cause-effect mechanisms, which are the only legitimate mechanisms science can be used to evaluate.
Does this mean anyone who believes in evolution must deny a supernatural role for God in the process? Not at all. There are many steps in the process that are unknown and could have been done directly by God bypassing the usual laws of nature. This is particularly the case with the initial life forms, which the Bible indicates were made from the dust of the earth (which is comparable to the naturalistic explanation). Most importantly, if the soul of man is supernatural (or at least beyond the usual understanding of nature), then it must have been given to human beings by supernatural means.
This brings us to the apparent contradiction between the Bible and a role for evolution in creation. However, because I cannot with intellectual honesty deny that the evidence supports evolution, I find myself in the interesting position of being a creationist who accepts a limited version of evolution. Does this influence my interpretation of the first few chapters of the Bible. Of course it does. However, scientific evidence influences the interpretation of scripture for all but a tiny minority of Christians today. In the Bible, we find the following, "Tremble before him, all the earth! The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved." (1 Chron. 16:30). Very similar statements are found in Psalms. The most straightforward interpretation of this is that the earth does not move through space. Thus, the church forbade Galileo from publishing his evidence for the Copernican view of the Solar system in which the earth revolves around the sun. However, virtually no one now interprets these passages this way. Why? Doing so would identify them as irrational. The evidence that Copernicus was right is overwhelming, people who don't accept it are marginalized as kooks. The evidence for evolution is not quite this strong, but it is close.
So, how do I interpret the Bible so that it at least allows the possibility of evolution? Actually it is not as difficult as many think. In fact, the first two chapters include what I believe is a purposeful indication that the accounts of creation are not intended to be a sequential scientific descriptions of creation. The clue is that the sequence of events in Chapter 1 differs from the sequence in Chapter 2. In Chapter 1, man and woman were created on the 6th day of creation after the plants and animals. In contrast, plants and trees were created after man, animals were created after man, and woman was created last in Chapter 2. There have been a variety of attempts to reconcile these differences and retain a literal interpretation of both accounts, but they simply are not credible. The clear indication in Chapter 2 is that man was created first, then animals (to provide helper for the man), then when none of the animals were found suitable woman was created. Any other reading of this account requires some assumptions and bending of meanings that are simply not in the text. This purposeful contradiction in sequence either means that the Bible contains mistakes or it means that we are not intended to take these accounts a literal, scientific, sequential accounts of creation. I do not believe the Bible contains mistakes, so I prefer the second option.
Doesn't this eliminate the foundation for the rest of the Bible. I do not believe it has any effect at all on the foundation for the rest of scripture. Death in the first two chapters refers to spiritual death, just as it clearly does in many verses in the New Testament. Evolution is permitted because physical death (of animals) could have occurred before the death of Adam and Eve. However, spiritual death can only occur in a spiritual being. There were none until God breathed His life (note: breath also refers to Spirit, pneuma, in scripture) into a man-like physical being that already had evolved from more primitive forms. The Fall is still the Fall and led to the loss of the ideal relationship of man and God and to all sorts of associated physical ills as recorded in scripture. These are consistent with health problems now known to be associated with various excessive life styles. The beginning of animals as herbivores followed by development of carnivores is noted in the Bible and is proposed in evolution as well. God created in the Bible, and science leaves this possibility open, but science cannot prove events that do not occur by natural causes.
The word "day" in chapter 1 is the Hebrew word "yom", which can mean a 24 hr day or an age of time. Near the end of the first chapter of Genesis, it is clearly used with this meaning when describing the age of creation. There is no biblical basis to insist that the days of creation were 24 hr periods. In fact, the concept of a 24-hr day makes no sense before the creation of the sun, which was not initially present. God saw that what He created was good in the sense that it was just as He planned, and He knew that whether by natural or supernatural means or both, human beings would arise from the processes He started. All was good in this same sense until the Fall, at which time human beings used their freedom to attempt to usurp God.
None of this compromises the Bible in any way, and in fact it is more respectful of the text than the convoluted, assumption filled interpretations required to reconcile chapters 1 and 2 and concomitantly retain a rigidly literal view of scripture. On the contrary, insisting that anything other than young earth, 24 hr day creation is a compromise harms and will continue to harm the cause of Christ. People who are given an objective summary of the evidence for evolution generally come to the conclusion that it is a pretty good theory. No one is required to accept it as fact, and when properly taught it is not taught that way. All science is provisional and subject to revision or replacement as new evidence or new frameworks of interpretation arise. However, when people keep hearing that Christians say you cannot believe in evolution and the Bible, we place people in an untenable position. They must either purposely embrace irrationality to accept Christ, or they must reject Christ and remain rational. This is happening. I have worked for many years in academic institutions, and I have personally seen it.
I would suggest that the interpretation of Genesis chapters 1 and 2 is anything but simple and there is ample evidence that it is not intended to be strictly literal. Are rigid literalists so certain they are right about their interpretation that they are willing to write off most of the educated people around the world? It seems to me that this represents a badly skewed set of priorities. The clear priority of Jesus was to bring salvation, but being "right" about evolution seems to be the priority of some believers.
I came to this conclusion 25 years ago, when I was faced with the prospect of teaching college Biology at a small Baptist affiliated college. I had become familiar with creationist writings of Henry Morris and others, but I thought I should do some additional reading before deciding how to approach evolution as a Professor many of whose students were preparing to be pastors. I wish I could summarize my findings here, but there is simply not space, and many excellent books have been published on this issue. The bottom line is that some of the arguments of the creationists are seriously flawed. Others are valid, such as the low probability of life developing by chance, but they are not powerful. Improbable events happen every day; just ask a lottery winner. In addition, the evidence for evolution was excellent in 1982, and it is much stronger now. Ignoring or reinterpreting this evidence as not indicating evolution requires wholesale abandonment of natural cause-effect mechanisms, which are the only legitimate mechanisms science can be used to evaluate.
Does this mean anyone who believes in evolution must deny a supernatural role for God in the process? Not at all. There are many steps in the process that are unknown and could have been done directly by God bypassing the usual laws of nature. This is particularly the case with the initial life forms, which the Bible indicates were made from the dust of the earth (which is comparable to the naturalistic explanation). Most importantly, if the soul of man is supernatural (or at least beyond the usual understanding of nature), then it must have been given to human beings by supernatural means.
This brings us to the apparent contradiction between the Bible and a role for evolution in creation. However, because I cannot with intellectual honesty deny that the evidence supports evolution, I find myself in the interesting position of being a creationist who accepts a limited version of evolution. Does this influence my interpretation of the first few chapters of the Bible. Of course it does. However, scientific evidence influences the interpretation of scripture for all but a tiny minority of Christians today. In the Bible, we find the following, "Tremble before him, all the earth! The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved." (1 Chron. 16:30). Very similar statements are found in Psalms. The most straightforward interpretation of this is that the earth does not move through space. Thus, the church forbade Galileo from publishing his evidence for the Copernican view of the Solar system in which the earth revolves around the sun. However, virtually no one now interprets these passages this way. Why? Doing so would identify them as irrational. The evidence that Copernicus was right is overwhelming, people who don't accept it are marginalized as kooks. The evidence for evolution is not quite this strong, but it is close.
So, how do I interpret the Bible so that it at least allows the possibility of evolution? Actually it is not as difficult as many think. In fact, the first two chapters include what I believe is a purposeful indication that the accounts of creation are not intended to be a sequential scientific descriptions of creation. The clue is that the sequence of events in Chapter 1 differs from the sequence in Chapter 2. In Chapter 1, man and woman were created on the 6th day of creation after the plants and animals. In contrast, plants and trees were created after man, animals were created after man, and woman was created last in Chapter 2. There have been a variety of attempts to reconcile these differences and retain a literal interpretation of both accounts, but they simply are not credible. The clear indication in Chapter 2 is that man was created first, then animals (to provide helper for the man), then when none of the animals were found suitable woman was created. Any other reading of this account requires some assumptions and bending of meanings that are simply not in the text. This purposeful contradiction in sequence either means that the Bible contains mistakes or it means that we are not intended to take these accounts a literal, scientific, sequential accounts of creation. I do not believe the Bible contains mistakes, so I prefer the second option.
Doesn't this eliminate the foundation for the rest of the Bible. I do not believe it has any effect at all on the foundation for the rest of scripture. Death in the first two chapters refers to spiritual death, just as it clearly does in many verses in the New Testament. Evolution is permitted because physical death (of animals) could have occurred before the death of Adam and Eve. However, spiritual death can only occur in a spiritual being. There were none until God breathed His life (note: breath also refers to Spirit, pneuma, in scripture) into a man-like physical being that already had evolved from more primitive forms. The Fall is still the Fall and led to the loss of the ideal relationship of man and God and to all sorts of associated physical ills as recorded in scripture. These are consistent with health problems now known to be associated with various excessive life styles. The beginning of animals as herbivores followed by development of carnivores is noted in the Bible and is proposed in evolution as well. God created in the Bible, and science leaves this possibility open, but science cannot prove events that do not occur by natural causes.
The word "day" in chapter 1 is the Hebrew word "yom", which can mean a 24 hr day or an age of time. Near the end of the first chapter of Genesis, it is clearly used with this meaning when describing the age of creation. There is no biblical basis to insist that the days of creation were 24 hr periods. In fact, the concept of a 24-hr day makes no sense before the creation of the sun, which was not initially present. God saw that what He created was good in the sense that it was just as He planned, and He knew that whether by natural or supernatural means or both, human beings would arise from the processes He started. All was good in this same sense until the Fall, at which time human beings used their freedom to attempt to usurp God.
None of this compromises the Bible in any way, and in fact it is more respectful of the text than the convoluted, assumption filled interpretations required to reconcile chapters 1 and 2 and concomitantly retain a rigidly literal view of scripture. On the contrary, insisting that anything other than young earth, 24 hr day creation is a compromise harms and will continue to harm the cause of Christ. People who are given an objective summary of the evidence for evolution generally come to the conclusion that it is a pretty good theory. No one is required to accept it as fact, and when properly taught it is not taught that way. All science is provisional and subject to revision or replacement as new evidence or new frameworks of interpretation arise. However, when people keep hearing that Christians say you cannot believe in evolution and the Bible, we place people in an untenable position. They must either purposely embrace irrationality to accept Christ, or they must reject Christ and remain rational. This is happening. I have worked for many years in academic institutions, and I have personally seen it.
I would suggest that the interpretation of Genesis chapters 1 and 2 is anything but simple and there is ample evidence that it is not intended to be strictly literal. Are rigid literalists so certain they are right about their interpretation that they are willing to write off most of the educated people around the world? It seems to me that this represents a badly skewed set of priorities. The clear priority of Jesus was to bring salvation, but being "right" about evolution seems to be the priority of some believers.
posted by Stephen Pruett at 4:01 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home