My article from this week's Algona Upper Des Moines evaluating the place of evolution for the Christian:
Q: How do Christians resolve the
idea of evolution with the Bible’s account of creation in Genesis? Is it possible to reconcile these two ideas
or much one choose between them?
Soon after Charles Darwin published
his ideas of natural selection, Christians began to contemplate how it should
be received in light of the Genesis creation account and to formulate responses
to this new theory.
Some Christians ardently objected to
the contradiction, preferring the Genesis account, refusing to even study or evaluate
evolutionary theory in light of its disagreement with Scripture’s record. Others simply accepted the evolutionary
proposition as fact, disregarding the Biblical account as myth or symbolism in
the process.
Later, some arose who attempted to
reconcile the two in a concept called Theistic Evolution. This attempt accepts the premise of species,
even man, occurring by means of evolution, but gives God the credit for
orchestrating the process.
All of the responses mentioned so far
have their difficulties, though: For
Christians to simply disregard scientific research is problematic, because it
gives the appearance of anti-intellectualism and drives Christians to mere
belief that lacks a factual foundation.
For Christians to uncritically adopt a scientific position that forces
them to disregard Scripture is also problematic, because it leaves no reason to
affirm anything in Scripture as true, and ultimately no reason to continue as a
Christian.
Theistic Evolution likewise has
inconsistencies which make it an unsatisfying option for the Christian. However, this is not primarily because, as it
might appear on the surface, that it casts doubt on the Bible as a “literal”
source of spiritual truth. This is a
concern, but not the most significant problem.
Instead, the foundational problem with theistic evolution is that it abandons
a single human couple as the parents of all humanity—and therefore undermines
the foundational concepts of salvation and sin in Christianity.
If God guided the process of
evolution so as to produce humanity rather than creating man as a distinct act,
then one must discern exactly which generation marked the transition from a
former species (lacking an immortal, spiritual, existence; not accountable to
God for actions) to humanity (having an immortal soul and accountable to God
for actions).
Likewise, there would be multiple
pairs of humans giving rise to the human species rather than a single set of
parents, forcing the conclusion that not all people inherit sin from Adam and
therefore could be spiritually good, or at least spiritually neutral, and thus
not in need of salvation for sin.
In contrast, the Apostle Paul, in
Romans 5 attributes human sinfulness to our common descent from Adam, and
portrays Jesus as the perfect man who causes a reversal of Adam’s sin and gifts
righteousness to humanity by taking the place of Adam and all his descendants
in death.
Apart from a single set of human
parents, sin is not universally attributed to all humanity, and more importantly,
sin cannot be collectively forgiven by Jesus’ substitution—thus undermining the
foundational idea of all Christianity and rendering the religion of no value,
because it could offer neither full forgiveness nor complete assurance to
man.
A reasonable path in dealing with
evolution as a Christian seems to be to affirm Darwin’s observable and
repeatable explanations of change within species (called micro-evolution) while
denying his unobservable, unrepeatable proposal of evolution across species (called
macro-evolution).
Although remaining space does not
allow much elaboration in this edition, modern research is indicating numerous
instances where evolution does not adequately explain many natural phenomena,
and while science cannot tell us who is responsible, it is becoming more and
more evident with the passage of time that nature shows evidence of
design. As a result, exclusive
evolutionists are declining in number in younger generations of scientists and
other explanations are being sought as to the source of this design,
particularly regarding the complex structures of the human body.
It is ultimately unwise and
inappropriate for Christians to pose an adversarial relationship between
science and faith, because it does justice to neither. At the same time, it is not necessary for
Christians to attempt to compromise between the two. Instead, Christians affirm well-researched
science and its conclusions, while questioning agenda-driven or poorly
considered theories. In doing so, it
becomes evident with the passage of time that the Bible and modern research
actually agree and science ultimately affirms the claims of Scripture.
No comments:
Post a Comment