As I’ve stated before on this blog I have no qualms with those who reject evolution on a scientific basis. I only am interested in defending the view that you can believe in evolution while taking scripture seriously. Interestingly there is a lot of push back against this idea. Much of it is just pure misunderstanding but some of it does seem to present some legitimate questions and problems to the theistic evolutionist stance. I aim to answer some of these objections here.
Objection 1: If theistic evolution is true then why does Genesis portray God as creating everything through separate acts of creation?
My thinking is the Bible is written this way to emphasize that what most cultures considers gods (the earth, moon, sun, stars) were actually created by one God. This is also why, I think, the creation story in Genesis is so lacking in the fantastic imagery we see in other creation accounts. If the author wanted to write the Genesis creation story as a critique and polemic against other creation accounts it would make sense to bluntly state what God has created and what other gods haven’t.
Moreover, how else is the author of the Bible supposed to write that God created the heavens and the earth? And even supposing he did write it with perfect scientific accuracy do you seriously want me to believe than anyone but him would understand it in a culture that had only the most basic technologies? Ancient Near Eastern cultures didn’t see accuracy in the same way we do. Their numerical systems were not mathematic or calculating but symbolic and largely based on cultural nuance and estimations. Time was not seen as something to be measured but rather the passing of one event to another, the duration of which being rather inconsequential. The chronology of events was not as important as their theme.
So I don’t see this objection as holding much weight.
Objection 2: In what sense is man separated from animal on theistic evolution?
If man is not merely a physical being but also has a soul, a non-physical rational mind then how did God put such a soul in man through the process of evolution? If it was an act of special creation then why did God use such a special creation here and not elsewhere in creation? If it wasn’t an act of special creation then the soul developed naturally over time in which case what is the real difference between man and beast?
A few problems with this. Firstly, there are many differing views on what it means to be made in the image of God. My own view is that it is primarily ontological and functional. It is ontological in the sense that we have rational and mental faculties that allow us to think on a level animals cannot. And it is functional in the sense that we have been given a special purpose by God to follow His natural law and be stewards over creation. But to say these two aspects of human nature developed over time in an evolutionary sense doesn’t require us to say that apes are partially made in the image of God and so on. It could be that this sort of spiritual evolution developed in a massive jump after apes, similar to the jump during the Cambrian explosion. The Cambrian explosion occurred over a 10 million year period where thousands of new species suddenly evolved. This occurred because basic skeletal structures, spinal columns and nervous systems developed out of more basic forms of life, allowing for a greater diversity of species to form. Similarly, hominids with souls may have only come into existence after brains had become sophisticated enough to express them.
Moreover, supposing God did implant a soul in the first hominid species or perhaps only homo-sapiens in what sense would this make theistic evolution ad-hoc or inconsistent? It seems entirely plausible that God could use special creation to use the brain mankind gained through heaven to place a soul or mind into and that He did this to separate man from the rest of creation as His image bearers.
Objection 3: How does death before the fall fit into Resurrection theology?
One interesting objection to theistic evolution is that because the Resurrection was a conquering of physical death as much as spiritual death, physical death must be seen as a symptom of the fall. Thus physical death could not exist before the fall. My response to this is simple, the problem isn’t physical death in itself but shameful death. Christ’s death on the cross was as much a ritual of humiliation as it was a sacrifice. Crucifixion was a horrendously shameful act that demeaned a person to perhaps the greatest extent possible in society. If physical death as a whole was really the issue, it seems strange that Christ would need to be killed by crucifixion which included so much shame and suffering. Why not just have Christ be beheaded or poisoned? But if we see physical death as perverted by the fall and made shameful to all who experience it and are forced to face God’s wrath afterwards, it makes sense that to conquer death Christ would have to die the most painful and shameful death possible.
This view also makes sense of the punishments God gives to Adam, Eve and the Serpent. All three of these figures are described as being brought below the other; the serpent is brought below Eve, Eve is brought below Adam and Adam is brought below creation. The central issue isn’t that they will die, but die in a fallen state. Given this there seems little issue with supposing that death existed before the fall. We could also further state that death would have led people to a sort of heaven where they awaited resurrection to glory if the fall had never happened. Perhaps such physical death was virtually painless and without shame. Perhaps Christ would have become incarnate anyway to walk with mankind and unite mankind to Himself. The point is death before the fall causes no theological issues or confusions if one actually takes the time to think it through.
Objection 4: Isn’t evolution inherently purposeless and unguided?
Yes and no. Evolution is unguided only in the sense that scientists have no way to accurately predict which adaptations will develop or where they will lead. We can’t predict what species will evolve next. But this doesn’t mean that God couldn’t be working behind the scenes to bring evolutionary processes to His intended ends. We can compare this to a man choosing a random series of numbers and asking another man to try to predict which number will come next. There is no way for the second man to reliably predict what the first man will choose next, but this doesn’t mean there is no one intentionally choosing the sequence of numbers.
Christians who believe that evolution requires this kind of purposelessness have got their ideas of evolution from staunch atheists like Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett who have been strongly criticized by both the philosophical and scientific community for making scientifically unjustifiable claims about the nature of evolution and its implications.
You can say that creation is an important Christian doctrine, but it is absurd to say that you cannot take the Bible or theology seriously and believe in an old earth, the Big Bang Theory or even evolution. These issues within the doctrine of creation are not hills to fight and die on. As 1 Corinthians 15 makes clear the center of Christian thought and hope is the Atonement and Resurrection of Christ. This is the point we must defend; the historicity of Christ’s resurrection. Instead Christians insist on centering the debate between skeptics and Christians on evolution and the numerous scientific issues involved therein.
No comments:
Post a Comment