Why I’m a theistic evolutionist;
One interesting aspect of evangelical theology is just how
antagonistic it is towards evolution. Most Christians I know are convinced that
not only is Darwinism false but it is utterly wicked. So I decided a while ago
to research why this is so and have become convinced that this dogmatic
position by evangelicals is unwarranted. While my findings don’t provide an
equally dogmatic case for theistic evolution they do show that such an idea is
plausible within a Judeo-Christian world-view. It should also be noted at the
outset that I’m defining theistic evolution here as the view that evolution and
Christian theism are compatible. Thus I will not be arguing that evolution is
true as one can still have scientific ground for rejecting the theory without
believing that it is inconsistent with Christian theology.
What has first shocked me to begin considering this idea is
the number of well-respected conservative Christian scholars, scientists,
philosophers and apologists who at least saw no conflict between evolution and
Christianity if not accepted evolution altogether. Scholars like N.T. Wright
and Bruce Waltke, philosophers like William Lane Craig and Paul Copan, and
scientists like Francis Collins and John Polkinghorn. These men are all
well-respected and well-known for their work in their respective fields. Even
more importantly they all defend ardently doctrines of the Christian faith like
the resurrection of Jesus, the trinity, the hypostatic union, the reliability
of the Old and New Testaments etc. This is important because it casts doubt on
the idea that these scholars and acedemics are using eisegesis in Genesis 1 as
they clearly are willing to defend doctrines of the Christian faith that are
widely scrutinized by secular scholars. This seems even more implausible when
one realizes that philosophers William Lane Craig and J.P. Moreland don’t
accept evolution on scientific grounds but are perfectly comfortable with it on
theological ones. So the question is, why are these men convinced that
evolution is consistent with Genesis?
Well their case centers on the genre of Genesis 1-11. What
these scholars question is whether or not Genesis 1 is really proto-science or
a strict explanation of where the universe and life on earth came to be in a
chronological step-by-step process. I’m framing their arguments in two phases.
Phase one includes the exegetical aspects of the debate whereas phase two
includes the philosophical and theological objections to theistic evolution.
Phase 1:
The 7 Days of Creation as a literary framework:
Day 1: The separation of light and darkness.
Day 4: The creation of lights to rule the day and the night.
Day 5: The creation of birds and fishes to fill the sky and
the sea.
Day 3: The separation of the sea from the dry land. The
creation of the plants.
Day 6: The creation of animals and humans to fill the land
and eat the plants.
Day 7: the heavens
and the earth were finished and God rested.
What’s shown above is an example of parallelism used often
used in Hebrew poetry. This is significant because it demonstrates that the
author does not want us to focus on the chronology of events but the pattern
and content therein. This casts doubt on the idea that Genesis 1 at least, is
meant to be a chronological narrative of how God went about creating everything
(Alexander, 2008 p. 155).
Objections:
Tim Chaffey from Answers In Genesis (2011) objects to this
view in a number of ways. First, he states; “this supposed semi-poetic construction is inconsistent with the fact
that Genesis 1 is a historical narrative. Hebrew scholar Steven Boyd has
clearly shown that Genesis 1 is written as historical narrative rather than
poetry. Hebrew poetry commonly utilizes a high percentage of imperfect and
perfect verbs. By contrast, Hebrew narrative is marked by a high frequency of
waw-consecutive preterite verbs that indicate a sequence of events in past
tense material.”
This is largely
irrelevant, scholars widely recognize that there is no reason to enforce
absolutes when considering the genre of ancient texts. It is completely
consistent to say that a text contains poetic and narrative elements.
“Second, the
above chart is inconsistent with the text of Genesis 1:1–2:3. Water was not created on the second day, but the first. Genesis 1:2 states, "The
Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters." This
occurred prior to the creation of light on the first day. So perhaps days 1 and
5 should be viewed as parallel.”
Again this is largely irrelevant. The parallelism is in the
separation of the waters, not necessarily their creation, just as light was
separated from darkness.
“Third, the order
of events is crucial here. The Framework proposes that the days are not
chronological, but theological. However, if one rearranges the chronology, then
it breaks down into absurdity. The waters of day 1 must exist for them to be
separated on day 2. On day 3, the dry land appeared from these waters. The sun,
moon, and stars of day 4 were placed in the heavens (expanse, firmament) of day
2. The birds of day 5 flew on the face of the firmament of day 2 and multiplied
on the land of day 3. Finally, mankind was made to rule over all of creation (Genesis 1:28). Any attempt to rearrange days of the
creation week forces impossibilities into the text.”
Again, how is this relevant? The point of the framework
hypothesis is that the process described above is of secondary importance, it
serves the purpose of a literary framework, not a literal description of
events.
Other Structural elements in the Genesis texts;
Parallel Toledot structure in Genesis;
J.P. Holding (2009)explains this
structure in Genesis 1-2 as follows;
·
1:1-2 Introduction
·
2:4-6 Introduction
·
1:3-5 Light/Darkness
·
2:7 Man/Dust
·
1:6-8 Firmament in Heaven
·
2:8 Garden on Earth
·
1:9-13 water and land, plants
·
2:9-15 plants, water and land
·
1:14-19 luminaries separated
·
2:16-17 two trees separated
·
1:20-3 first creation of animal life
·
2:18 first concern for man's companionship
·
1:24-31 creation continues
·
2:19-22 concern continues
·
2:1-3, 2:23-4 internal patterns
-end of process
-divine involvement
-separation of Sabbath/separation
of couples from parents
-blessing of Sabbath/unity of
couple
Thus Genesis 2 parallels Genesis 1 in that it is a story of
man’s origins/functions in the same way Genesis 1 was a story of creations
origins/functions. So again, while there are elements of narrative in the text
there are also many elements of poetry as will, which casts doubt on the idea
that Genesis should be taken as pure historical narrative much less a modern
one.
Symbolism in Genesis;
The pair of three in the days of creation is also highly
symbolic. In Hebrew conception, the number three signaled completeness and
wholeness.
The importance of this is pointed out by Conrad Hyers (),
“Literalism presumes that the numbering of days is to be understood in an
arithmetical sense, whether as actual days or as epochs. This is certainly the
way in which numbers are used in science, history and mathematics-and in
practically all areas of modern life. But the use of numbers in ancient
religious texts was often numerological rather than numer-ical. That is, their
symbolic value was the basis and purpose for their use, not their secular value
as counters.”
The number 7 as well was used commonly in the ancient world
to refer to completeness and fullness, this means we cannot assume,
prima-facie, that the 7 days of creation simply mean a 7 day period.
Again this demonstrates that the 7 days in Genesis 1 are not
meant to be an account of chronological time a framework from which to develop
a theological polemic against competing pagan creation myths.
Hebrew thought and time;
The ancient Hebrew people did not view time as we do in the
west. While of course they had a sense of chronology of events they did not see
a strict chronology of time as important when compared to the importance of the
meaning of the events. As such, the ancient Hebrews often changed the sequence
of events when describing an event to emphasize a theme or idea present in the
events themselves. One clear example of this occurs in the three temptations of
Jesus in Matthew and Luke. Matthew has the temptation of Jesus culminate on the
mountain whereas Luke has it end in the temple. From a chronological
perspective this discrepancy makes no sense, but seen in a thematic pattern we
see that throughout Matthew the major events of Jesus life are portrayed as
being on mountains or hills. Thus Matthew continues this theme by placing the
pinnacle of Jesus temptation on the high mountain (Richards, O’brian, 2011 pp 148-149).
With This in mind Genesis 1 and 2 take on an entirely
different perspective. In the six days of creation this is exactly what we see
the first 3 days are combined with the theme of separation whereas the second
are paired with the theme of filling the newly separated and structured
creation. The same pattern of thought is seen in the parallelism between
chapters 1 and 2, the two chapters do not seem to be intended to follow a
chronological pattern but a logical one, drawing parallels between the creation
of man and the world he inhabits.
Genesis 1-2 as a polemic against pagan mythology;
So if the author’s main intention in Genesis 1-2 wasn’t to provide a historical
chronological narrative then what was? Conrad Hyers (1984) writes,
“The type of narrative form with which Genesis
1 is presented is not natural history but a cosmogony. It is like other ancient
cosmogonies in the sense that its basic structure is that of movement from
chaos to cosmos. Its logic, therefore, is not geological or biological but
cosmological. On the other hand it is radically unlike other ancient
cosmogonies in that it is a monotheistic cosmogony; indeed it is using the
cosmogonic form to deny and dismiss all polytheistic cosmogonies and their
attendant worship of the gods and goddesses of nature. In both form and
content, then, Genesis I reveals that its basic purposes are religious and
theological, not scientific or historical.”
Particularly in Genesis 1 we find similarities to similar
pagan cosmonogies, but similarities that appear intended not to copy but to
argue against said pagan cosmogonies.
To take some general contrasts, for instance. In most middle
Eastern creation myths such as the Assyrian and Egyptian man is created to
serve the gods or as an accident or an afterthought. However, in Genesis the
creation of man is the climax of the creative process, man is the only thing
created in the image of God. Furthermore it seems clear that Genesis 1-2
rejects polytheism and emphasizes the sovereignty and creative power of God.
The similarities between Genesis and pagan mythologies of
the Middle East serve the two points of contention stated above. For example;
Genesis 1 carries the standard view of ANE creation myths by describing the
divine ordering the chaos and providing structure and order to creation.
However, Genesis differs from these views in that the divine does not struggle
with chaos but clearly dominates and controls it. Furthermore, the divine is
clearly a single being, not a multitude of god’s. Further similarities occur in
Genesis 1:2 where the first thing described to exist is the waters, darkness
and earth. These were commonly thought to be the three basic problems or
dangers of chaos. Thus, as Hyers points out, the first three days center around
solving these three problems. Light is created and separated from the darkness,
waters are separated by a firmament, and earth is separated from the waters and
covered in plants. These three elements or aspects of creation are then given
fullness and complete structure and function in days 4-6 with the creation of
the luminaries, stars, birds, fish, animals and mankind.
Whats more, the description of the things created makes
clear that objects like the sun are not god’s but merely objects created with a
function determined by their creator, God. Even the stars are described as
merely being signposts for signs and seasons. There is no hint that there
function is crucial to creation itself or that they are responsible for man’s
creation as in so many other creation myths.
What about Genesis 3-11?
Actually most commentators consider the first section of
Genesis to be chapters 1-11 precisely because they cover similar topics,
contain similar structure and have similar writing styles and genre’s. And as
expected we see many of the same elements described above in this first section
of Genesis. In regard to these similarities Gary Smith (1978) states,
“The
striking linguistic similarities that the author places in the Adamic and
Noahnic stories help to determine the main division of these eleven chapters. As
Westermann says, ‘The resemblance between the end of the Flood narrative and
the Creation story is self-evident.’ This fundamental break is recognized by
von Rad, who concludes that ‘the words of Genesis 8:2 If may actually be called
the real conclusion of this history, for at that point the history of mankind
begins anew.’ Others have observed that there is something of a new beginning
at chap. 9, but few of the major commentaries have made this the major break in
the outline of Genesis 1-11.”
Indeed we see a similar sort of parallel structure between
Ch. 1 and 8,9 that we saw between Ch. 1 and 2.
(a) Because the earth was covered in water, it was
uninhabitable for man, as such land was separated from the waters (1:9-10;
8:1-13).
(b) “birds and animals and every creeping thing that creeps
on the earth” are brought forth to “swarm upon the earth” in 1:20-21, 4-25 and
8:17-19.
(c) The days and seasons are established by God in 1:14-18
and 9:2.
(d) God commands the animals to “be fruitful and multiply on
the earth” in 1:22 and 8:17.
(e) God tells man to “be fruitful and multiply and fill the
earth” in 1:28 and 9:1,7.
(f) God gives man dominion over animals in 1:28 and 9:2.
(g) God provides food for man in 1:29-30 and 9:3.
(h) Man is spoken of as being made in the image of God in
1:26-27 and 9:6.
The theological structure of Genesis 3-11;
These parallels highlight a major theme in flood account,
that of a renewed creation. Indeed Smith notes an important pattern in Genesis
1-11, that of creation, blessing, expansion, and a record of genealogies. Smith
divides Genesis 1-11 into two sections; 1-8 and 9-11. In both sections this
pattern is there, mankind is blessed and commanded to multiply and fill the
earth and then the author records man’s expansion to various lands and the
genealogies of the great men who achieved such expansions. The flood then acts
as the division between these two sections of Genesis 1-11. Note also the elements
of block logic in the text. Again we see the twofold division where there are
stories of creation, destruction and recreation, with parallels drawn between.
At the same time there are many similarities between Genesis
3-11 and other ANE mythologies. For instance, the theme of men of old being
much greater and living much longer than the people at the time of Moses was a
common motif in ANE mythologies. Robert Branson notes, “The early history of
humanity was viewed in antiquity as a golden age when humans lived in an
idyllic setting, had special relationships with deities, and lived extremely
long lives. The biblical account
con-forms to this general pattern.” And yet, unlike its
pagan counterparts, the Genesis account portrays man as being purposed for
dominion over the Earth and emphasizes the fulfillment of that purpose. Thus it
seems that while its possible the author of Genesis really believed that the
first humans lived to be upwards of 900 years old its unlikely he held such a
belief with any conviction. In other words, the author wouldn’t have cared if
our ancestors really didn’t live longer lives so why should we?
The flood account in Genesis 8-9 is also similar in many
ways to other ANE flood mythologies, in particular the Gilgamish Epic and
Atrahasis Epic. And again these similarities seem to be purely material in
nature with a completely different theological background (Fischer, 1996).
Furthermore, it’s unclear whether or not the flood account
in Genesis 8-9 was intended to be about the entire earth. The word used for
“the earth” in genesis 8 is “erets” which almost universally refers to some
portion of dry land and it is often uncertain what land it is referring to. At
times it clearly refers to a nation (Gen 2:11), or a plot of land (Gen 23:15).
But, it is often claimed, erets mostly refers to the whole sum of dry land,
particularly when it says “to the ends of erets”. This is far from certain, it
is perfectly consistent, if not probable that because erets was commonly
understood as dry land that the phrase “ends of the erets” really means a shore
line or perhaps a geo-political boundary between nation states (Holding, ).
While there is very little to no evidence of a global flood
happening any time in recent history, a local flood is much more plausible.
Geological evidence suggest that the Black Sea flooded many thousands of square
miles, eventually covering an area the size of Florida (Gierlowski, 1999).
What about Adam and Eve?
In the account of Adam and Eve in Genesis 2 it’s hard to
deny that historical figures are being discussed here, however, it is unclear
whether these historical figures are two people or a group of people. In any
case it is also clear that there is much figurative language surrounding these
two characters. For instance, the imagery of God breathing life into Adam’s
nostrils or creating Eve out of Adams rib are awkward accounts if interpreted
as a literal historical account but very elegant poetic descriptions of man’s
origins. Thus I don’t think the Christian is committed to the view that God
literally created man from the dust of the earth any more than they are
committed to believing that serpents literally eat dirt. In addition there is a
heavy amount of symbolism in regards to the garden of Eden. For one thing,
there appears to be no precise geographical location that corresponds to the
description given in Genesis and nowhere in scripture is Eden sought out or
treated as a physical place. The description of rivers flowing out of Eden
could also be symbolic of God’s presence and blessings (e.g. Ps 46:4, Rev
22:1).
This use of figurative language and symbolism makes me doubt
that this is a literal description of what happened to the characters of Adam
and Eve. Rather it seems that this is, again, a theological description of man’s
origins and purpose. Still difficulty persists between modern evolutionary
anthropology and the story of Adam and Eve. If Adam and Eve really were the
first humans then the consensus among scientists today that our species began
with a population of several thousand individuals 6-8 thousand years ago cannot
be correct. Many models have been proposed to resolve this dilemma. For
instance, Denis Alexander proposes that Adam and Eve weren’t really the first
homo-sapiens after all but were the first “homo-divinus”. In other words, they
were the first humans to enter into a covenant relationship with God. Still
others theorize that Adam and Eve are only representatives of the first group
of humans (Alexander, 2008). Because the discussion on this topic is highly complex
I will simply say that the Christian need not be committed to a strictly
literal interpretation of Genesis 2 and can instead be open to a wide range of interpretations,
many of which are consistent with modern evolutionary theory.
Objections answered;
Isn’t it possible that Genesis influenced other ANE accounts
and not the other way around?
Yes it’s possible, but unlikely. For one thing it seems
improbable that Israel had that kind of influence in middle eastern culture.
Furthermore, as Branson points out, “The theological sophistication of the Genesis
account that weaves together human culpability, divine justice executed by one God,
and covenantal promise argues for a development later than its ANE counterparts.”(2009).
What about the Biblical idea that there was no death before
the fall, how is evolution consistent with this teaching?
It’s not, but then again it’s not much of a biblical idea,
Genesis never claims this. What Genesis does claim hints at the idea that Adam
and Eve were not immortal before the fall. For instance the creation of the
tree of life and the tree of knowledge, if Adam and Eve already had eternal
life why did God create a tree for the purpose of giving mankind eternal life?
Aha one might immediately object, what about God’s statement that those who eat
of the tree of knowledge will surely die? Well given the context it seems
unlikely this verse means physical death. Holding states, “The account in
Genesis goes on to depict Adam and Eve as losing fellowship with God. To the
Hebrew mind, loss of fellowship with God is a fate worse than death, for it was
the loss of fellowship with the prime source of peace. Thus the word
"death" --- representing the most fearsome and irreversible fate in
this life --- was chosen to figuratively describe this loss of fellowship with
God.” Indeed this theme is quite evident throughout scripture. Spiritual death
is thought of as separate and worse than physical death.
Phase 2:
Theological Concerns:
Does evolution allow for the doctrine of the fall?
Yes, at least to a certain extent, even taking the most
extreme view that Adam and Eve are purely figurative characters representing
the first humans struggle against sin it seems obvious that there was a first
sin committed by a human and thus the fall would have happened at that point.
However, the opposite extreme of believing that physical death and pain only
entered the world after the fall is not allowed by modern evolutionary theory.
But as I explained above, there is little Biblical evidence for such a view.
How could God guide a random and purposeless process?
Contrary to the affirmations of Dawkins evolution is not
inherently a random process. There is nothing about the scientific theory
itself which requires it to be unguided or without a desired end. Ernst Mayr, a
prominent biologist states, “When it is said that mutation or variation is
random, the statement simply means that there is no correlation between the production of new
genotypes and the adaptational needs of an organism in a given environment.
(Plantinga p. 28)” In other words there is no physical mechanism which
determines what mutations and changes will occur in a species. Thus it is
perfectly consistent to suppose that there was divine causation for such
events.
Does evolution entail a more deistic sort of God not
involved in His creation?
To a limited extent yes it does, but only when it comes to
biological creation. Even here, however, one could believe that God directly
acted in the evolutionary process to bring about various mutations and species.
Other than that, on theistic evolution the miracles described in the Old
Testament could still very well be historical events, as well as the life,
death and resurrection of Jesus.
Does evolution entail that mankind is nothing more than an
enlightened primate?
No, evolution makes no claim about the true nature of
mankind as an ontological entity. Evolution only claims that man is an
enlightened primate, its still possible, on evolution, to suppose that man is
created in the image of God. Lets take John Stott’s view, that man gained a
soul when he was able to respond to God and enter into covenant with Him. This
certainly doesn’t include everything a soul entails, but it is sufficient to
show that one’s Neanderthals and other hominids gained the ability to reason,
use language and respond to God’s revelation they became made in the image of
God. Or perhaps God acted more directly and chose homo-sapiens in particular to
be made in the image of God and breathed souls into them. In any case I hardly
see how this creates a problem on a theological level, our biological origins
hardly define or constrain our ontological identity.
Does such a non-literal reading of Genesis violate
inerrancy?
No, because if the framework for understanding Genesis I am
proposing is correct then Genesis 1-2 doesn’t claim that the universe was
created in 6 days, nor does it claim that there was a literal firmament or dome
that separated what were viewed as the waters of the heavens and the waters of
the Earth. These are merely literary devices to make far more important
theological points about who God is, who we are and how God relates to us. Now
someone could of course object that such an allegorical interpretation doesn’t
make sense, but then that’s not an argument that this interpretation and others
like violate inerrancy but merely that they don’t make sense out of what the
text is really claiming. So there seems to be a confusion here between inerrant
interpretations of scripture, which don’t exist, and inerrant claims of
scripture itself. Note also the key word here; claims. I think its misleading
to suggest that inerrancy teaches that it is the words of scripture that are
inerrant, such a view seems to undermine interpretation altogether by treating
context as irrelevant to a texts meaning. Rather to say that the Bible is
inerrant is to suggest that everything it claims is true and surely this is
compatible with an allegorical reading of Genesis 1-11.
Does evolution imply that God used death to create? How
could God use such an evil tool to create life?
Why is physical death evil? It is never described as such in
the Bible. Certainly various kinds of death, such as murder and suicide are
evil according to the Biblical account, but who would consider animals hunting
for food murder? Furthermore, evolution in a different light illustrates many
themes of Christian thought, that of life coming from death and new life at
that.
References;
Alexander D.
(2008). Creation or Evolution: Do We Have
to Choose? Oxford, UK: Monarch Books.
Branson, R.
(2009). Shifting paradigms for interpreting Genesis 1-11. Wesleyan
Theological Journal, 44(1), 141-156
Fischer D.
(1996). Genesis Flood. Retrieved
from; http://www2.asa3.org/archive/asa/199604/0281.html
Holding, J.P.
(2009). Are There Two Creation Accounts? Retrieved
from; http://www.tektonics.org/jedp/creationtwo.html
Holding, J. P. (2009).
Does the Bible Teach the Earth is Flat?
Retrieved from; http://www.tektonics.org/af/earthshape.html
Hyers, C (1984). The
Narrative Form of Genesis 1: Cosmogonic, Yes; Scientific, No. Journal
of the American Scientific Affiliation, 36.4. Retrieved from http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/ted_hildebrandt/otesources/01-genesis/text/articles-books/hyers_gen1_jasa.pdf
Gierlowski-Kordesch,
E. (1999). Noah's flood: The new scientific discoveries about the event that
changed history. Biblical Archaeology Review, 25(6), 56-59. Retrieved
from http://search.proquest.com/docview/214909819?accountid=7374
Plantinga A.
(2011). Where The Conflict Really Lies:
Science, Religion, and Naturalism. New York, NY: Oxford University Press,
Inc.
Richards R.E., O’brian
B.J. (2012). Misreading Scripture With
Western Eyes: Removing Cultural Blinders to Better Understand the Bible. Downers
Grove, IL: Inter Varsity Press.
Smith, G.V. Structure and Purpose In Genesis 1-11.
Retrieved from http://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/20/20-4/20-4-pp307-319_JETS.pdf
