At The Beginning
By Daniel Harrell, this is the introduction to the new book Nature’s Witness: How Evolution Can Inspire Faith, posted here by permission of Abingdon Press:
Walking across the Boston Common one cold winter’s eve, I was approached by a gentleman, somewhat agitated, who recognized me from church.
“Are you the minister who’s writing the book on evolution?”
This didn’t sound good. “Uh, ... yes?” I replied, bracing myself.
“Do you believe in the word of God? Do you believe that God created the heavens and the earth in six days, like the Bible says?” His articulation was semiautomatic—as was his tone.
I assured him that yes, I believed the Bible says that God created the heavens and the earth in six days. I also believe that rivers clap their hands and that mountains sing (Ps 98:9) because the Bible says that too. But I don’t think that the Bible means six twenty-four-hour days any more than I believe that the Bible means that rivers have literal hands.
He worried that I suffered from delusion (which as far as I am concerned is never outside the realm of possibility). However, I reminded him that there are two types of delusion. There is the delusion that believes something that is not true, and there is the delusion that fails to believe something that is true. If evolution is an accurate description of the emergence of life, as science attests, then believing it alongside the Bible should pose no threat. There’s no need to fear any honest search for truth because in the end, all honest searches for truth inevitably lead back to God.
Historically, religious faith, particularly Christianity, served as the loom onto which the discoveries of science were woven. It was within a Christian theological framework that scientific disclosure found its transcendent meaning. Descartes, Bacon, Galileo, Kepler and Newton, believers all, saw their work not as replacements for faith, but as extensions of it. The idea was that the best of science and the best of theology concerted to give human beings deeper insight into the workings of the universe and, subsequently, into the divine character. Scientific discovery was received with gratitude to the Almighty for the wonder of his creation. Scientists, alongside the psalmist, would proclaim, “The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands” (Ps 19:1 NIV).
The balance between faith and science (or reason) was established in the Middle Ages by Thomas Aquinas. Aquinas, building on Augustine, established a delicate equilibrium between theology (reasoning down from faith) and philosophy, analogous to science (reasoning up from sensory data). Aquinas, unlike the Reformers who would follow, taught that human senses and rational faculties, as made by God, were competent for understanding reality, albeit from a limited standpoint. The limits were filled in by theology. Aquinas asserted that God acted through “secondary causes,” creating the world according to his laws and then giving nature room to unfold in accordance with God’s laws. Whatever was good science was good as far as God is concerned; science simply described what God had already done.
However, if God operated mostly behind the scenes as the prime cause, then it wasn’t long before people started wondering whether he was there at all. In time, reliance upon divine revelation gave way to human reason in its Enlightenment form, and soon the supernatural was rendered superfluous. As science advanced, Christians reacted by retreating into a sort of Manichean dualism whereby science was demonized and faith grew reliant on a super-supernatural world where any ordinary explanation raised suspicion. With battle lines so starkly drawn, scientists were left to assume that any move toward Christian faith was akin to committing intellectual suicide. Conversely, the faithful relied on science for their medicine or the weather forecast, but much more than that was to attempt spiritual suicide. Let a spark of evolution in the door and you were liable to catch the whole house on fire.
The controversy between Christian faith and evolution is exacerbated by increasing mounds of scientific data that lend weight to evolution. Paleontology, biochemistry, cosmology, physics, genetics—you name the discipline—each regularly puts forth newly discovered evidence in support of Darwin’s simple idea of descent with modification. While some people of faith choose to keep their doors closed, shutting out science is not necessary. Christian faith by definition defies human conceptions of reality (1 Cor 3:19). Its claims are grounded in extraordinary events that defy scientific explanation (most importantly the incarnation and resurrection of Jesus). But God is not only present where science is silent; he remains present even where science speaks loudest. The expansiveness of the universe, the beauty and complexity of organic life and the remarkable makeup of human consciousness—naturally explicable occurrences—are also interpreted by Christians as manifestations of God (Rom 1:20). Christianity consistently asserts that all truth is God’s truth, implying that faith and science, despite differences when it comes to explaining why, nevertheless should agree in regard to what is. Why bother talking about God if God has no relation to observable reality?
An avalanche of books has been devoted to the controversy between Christianity and evolution. Don’t expect a contribution to that debate here. There are plenty of other places where that conversation occurs. Instead, I’d like to look at Christian faith in the face of evolution as essentially true as most scientists assert. Now I know that just because a particular theory makes sense of the way something could have happened, it doesn’t necessarily mean that it actually happened that way. But if evolution truly provides an accurate description of life on earth, and things did happen the way evolution describes, how might we rethink the way we think about what the Bible says? To rethink what we think about the Bible is not to rewrite Scripture, nor is it to capitulate to Christianity’s detractors. Instead, rethinking and reworking our theology in light of accurate data results in a more dependable and resilient theology. To be a serious Christian is to seek truth and find it as revealed by God both in Scripture and in nature. If God is the maker of heaven and earth, as we believe, then the heavens and earth, as science describes them, have something to say about God. Natural selection need not imply godless selection. To be reliable witnesses of creation can’t help but make us more reliable witnesses to the Creator.
Daniel M. Harrell is a pastor at Park Street Church in Boston and holds a PhD in developmental psychology from Boston College.
Bookmark this article using Remarkable!
Welcome to the Reader's Forum
I’d like to press back a bit here…what would you say are the “accurate data results” of the evolutionary theory? How sure are you that they are accurate? I’m assuming that you’d say because science says so, no? I wonder what’s different about that posture than the posture propagated in/by the Enlightenment…
Furthermore is science really providing us with increasing mounds of data supporting evolution? I think that depends on who’s “science” you’re refering to. In fact, some scientists would say that the evolutionary theory isn’t really even good science…at best it’s bad dogma.
In the end I guess we’re left with a choice, aren’t we?
Sean: I can tell your response is heartfelt and well thought out, and I do not wish to get into a deep debate, though there are a few fringe scientists who argue against evolution the vast majority support. It may be called a theory but so is gravity, yet we can see the demonstrable effects of both in the world, as evidenced by genetic finds, especially those in regards to the development of the human thumb,in the case of evolution, among other things. Also the Bible puts forward at least 3 probably more accounts of creation that are seemingly incompatible. Gen. 1, Gen. 2, and Isaiah 51 9- 11 (among others. The final being the oldest (inserted archaic Hebrew poetry) and most fantastic. This does not mean that any of these stories are false, just that they are not meant as historical documents so much as descriptions of God’s creative power, and God’s power over the forces of chaos.
I agree with Matt. To say the purpose of the Genesis creation accounts is something similar to a modern science text book is to anachronistically apply a genre that would have been foreign to the original tellers, writers, hearers, readers.
In the context of the genre the main purposes of the Genesis account(s) is to attest to the one (good) God/Creator, who is responsible for the (good) creation. This is different than other Ancient Near Eastern accounts that saw multiple (often morally-arbitrary) God-forces in nature.
Matt / Darren,
I’m not really going there as to whether or not Genesis’ creation account is ‘factual’, historical and / or scientific. I have my thoughts on the matter, but that not the point of my push back.
What I’m questioning is the assumption that modern science is “right” on the issue and whether starting with that assumption is “right”. To do so, in my opinion, is to fall captive to the trap of the Enlightenment and baptize a method (“science”) that is clearly not static and is instead fluid. In other words, when someone says that they need to re-evaluate what they think they know about the Bible on the basis of what “science” (again, whose science are we talking about) tells them, that whole premise is built upon an Enlightenment epistemology, is it not – what we know is what we can prove / demonstrate?
Also, my understanding is that the evolutionary theory as typically understood in the Darwinian sense is not a theory but a hypothesis, no? I’ve even had college professors admit that to me…
Sean sorry for missing the thrust of your argument, my bad no hard intended. I also agree that what we know about the Bible should not be reevaluated based upon scientific (individual or communally excepted)If what we know about the Bible is that it is a method of conveying the Gospel, but I do think that both modern science and thought (in their ever changing forms) is helpful in how we understand how we read the Bible. If we do not take into account modern scientific and archeological gains we may end up reading the Bible as a history book, and not looking for the Gospel message in it, but neither science not archeology, nor modern/postmodern thought is a proper method for challenging the Gospel message, articulated many ways but John 3:16 should do for this conversation, So in the end I think evolutionary biology, as well as the critical methods of studying the Bible, and archeology are helpful in pointing out the nature of the Bible,not as a history book but as a way of conveying the Gospel message. I took way to long to write that sorry.
Hi Sean,
There is certainly a place for healthy skepticism, but I think in this instance (ie. the acceptance of evolutionary theory) it probably isn’t warranted. The scientific community continues to discover evidence that is consistent with the theory – the theory has very strong explanatory power, which is about the best one can do in science (rarely does one talk about proof – that is for logic or mathematics). What is interesting for me is that even the Christian scientific community with the relevant expertise (eg. biology) is increasingly coming out in support of evolution. I suspect that a majority of Christians with post-graduate degrees in biology, even Christians teaching in Evangelical colleges, accept evolution.
I like Daniel’s approach here. If the scientists that share our faith in Jesus Christ support evolution, what does this mean for the rest of us (theologians, pastors, church leaders, “ordinary Christians in the pew”?
For an expanded work concerning the scientific/biblical/theological relationship of evolution & creation there is ‘Evolutionary Creation: A Christian Approach to Evolution’. It’s a brilliant work recommended by the likes of Francis Collins, Owen Gingerich & Keith Miller, & yes, a nobody like me.
www.amazon.com/Evolutionary-Creation-Christian-Approach-Evolution/dp/1556355815
I should note that there are also a lot of scientists that are coming out in support of ID, OEC, and YEC, so there is no need to make a theological decision based on the dogmatic assertions of media-supported scientists. John Sanford, the person who invented transgenic crops, is a YEC, as is a member of the team that sequenced the rice genome, as is the medical doctor who invented the MRI, as are a number of other scientists. I think we should be encouraging dialogue, not encouraging people just to take “science’s” word for it, as if science were a static body of knowledge.
One thing this book misses completely is the relevance of the flood. As a practical matter, modern YEC is not built on Genesis 1 nearly as much as Genesis 6-9, which the author does indeed say sounds more historical than Genesis 1, without noting how that might impact one’s view on Creation/Evolution.
As Ronald Numbers (an evolutionist) has pointed out in his book The Creationists, the numbers of credentialed scientists who are YEC has been steadily increasing.
Also problematic for the book is that it’s view of evolution is quite dated, reflecting a Dawkins-inspired 1980s version of the theory. Modern evolutionary theory has been revolutionizing itself, where the recent Altenberg conference is just the tip of the iceberg.
Add Emergent Village to
Join our mailing list:
Subscribe!
You can subscribe to the Emergent Village RSS feed or get the same updates e-mailed to you.
Recent Weblog Posts
Current Podcast
Reader Comments
- Josh (destructive theology)
- rey (destructive theology)
- rey (destructive theology)
- Josh (Can Truth Be Plural? A response to "Manifold Witness" by John Franke)
- Josh (destructive theology)
- rey (destructive theology)
- Josh (destructive theology)
- Patrick Green (speaking out for one another)
- eric (speaking out for one another)
- John79 (Can Truth Be Plural? A response to "Manifold Witness" by John Franke)
Best Weblog Posts
Links
The only real problem that I find with the scriptures and evolution is the timeline. If we look in to Genesis one and the order of creation, it doesn’t seem to be possible. For example, how can God create vegetation and let that cycle of evolution begin for thousands of years with out a light source or a heat source. I guess I would like to know how you think that all works out. By the way, for good post!