(1) I’ve realized that there are two things I do not like to see when Christians discuss evolution. The first is a fundamentalism that says any Christian who accepts evolution to be true must be compromising their trust in Scripture. This is simply not a necessary deduction. Many people who are very committed to the message of Scripture also accept the validity of evolution. The second would be a type of fundamentalism that lambastes anyone who does not accept evolution or who cannot honestly accept evolution to be true because they cannot reconcile it with the teachings of Scripture and/or the doctrines of traditional Christianity. One thing that does not determine the unity of the church or the validity of the gospel is whether or not God created everything in the blink of an eye as if it was millions and billions of years old or if God took millions and billions of years like an artist to unfold his creation. To use this as a point of division from either side seems very shameful to me.
(2) I think evolution must be discussed. We do not have the option to ignore it. We should be willing to wrestle with the implications of what evolution means for the Christian religion and we should be honest with each other regarding why or why not we think it is compatible. In other words the solution to avoiding disunity over this subject is not to ignore it.
(3) We must be careful with this topic to recognize when someone is “weak” in the faith. I don’t mean one is weak if they accept evolution (compromise!), nor do I think they are weak if they deny it (ostrich with their head in the sand!), but rather that the whole subject shakes them a bit. For those who strongly affirm evolution’s compatibility with Christianity there must be care not to bulldoze those who cannot make that leap. It would be a tragedy for someone’s relationship with God to be stunted over a secondary issue like this one. Likewise, those who strongly deny evolution’s compatibility must be careful to avoid paper-thin apologetical answers to questions. This leaves the questioner exposed and when they realize how thin the answer was this could lead to further doubt in other areas.
(4) I think it is good to read widely when the time is appropriate. When Peter Enns’ book The Evolution of Adam: What the Bible Does and Doesn’t Say About Human Origins releases in 2012 it is my intent to purchase it right along side of C. John Collins’ Did Adam and Eve Really Exist?: Who They Were and Why You Should Care. I found Enns’ Inspiration and Incarnation to be balanced and helpful as I thought about the nature of Scripture and I imagine this book will be as useful. Likewise, I have heard positive thinks about Collins’ book. If I wasn’t buried under my thesis this summer and a class on the Synoptic Problem this fall I may begin reading more on this topic right now.
(5) I know some people love and some people hate BioLogos. Personally, I appreciate what they are trying to do. I’ve enjoyed reading their cite because I know these are brothers and sisters in Christ who also are called to the sciences. If Darwin was right this doesn’t demand Darwinian thought be right (as popularly understood by some militant naturalist). We need more solid work from Christians in the sciences, even if they don’t affirm what BioLogos affirms. One example would be this recent video which I enjoyed: “A Leap of Truth: Paul’s Adam”. (If there is a group that is more in the “Intelligent Design” camp that does work like BioLogos let me know where to find them.)
Brian, here’s one on ID I used to visit: http://www.uncommondescent.com/ .
We can discuss this all day.
But, scripture is pretty wayward. Unicorns and virgin births are silly, but an Earth made in 7 days…and made in the dark!! lol…is just stupid.
Let’s find the real truth and not silly ones invented by the immature minds of three thousand years ago.
@Bobby: Thanks
@Michael: That is as worthless a comment as a conservative Christians boiling evolution down to humans coming from slim or a monkey using some cute slogan like “You may have come from a monkey, but I didn’t.”
@Michael,
Of course, as you know, if someone can accept the first verse of the Bible then nothing after that is “silly”. What’s interesting to me is that you believe in the concept of “truth,” which transcends your own principles of what you think is “un-silly” thinking (presumably mature minds) … which in the end is just silly on your part. I think you should consider what you say prior to saying it a little more.
Brian,
In looking at BioLogos, I found them to be fraught with the second type of fundamentalism you mentioned, the one that “lambastes anyone who does not accept evolution or who cannot honestly accept evolution to be true because they cannot reconcile it with the teachings of Scripture.” I find it strange that you give them positive reviews in your 5th point after criticizing their basic M.O. in point 1.
Based on what you say here, it sounds like you believe it is possible to reconcile evolution and the Bible. But how can belief in evolution be reconciled with Romans 5:12?
“Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned—” NASB
If death only entered the world through one man’s sin, how could there be thousands (or millions) of years of death preceding that one man and his sin (as proposed by every type of evolutionary theory)? Evolution requires the reign of death throughout the ages prior to the rise of “modern” man. How did death “spread to all men” if death was already the natural and normal process – and in fact the process by which man was progressing? If Paul was wrong on these points, how can we believe what he says about the work of Christ, and grace triumphing over sin, and eternal life resulting? Evolutionism turns his whole argument into nonsense. Call me a fundamentalist if you like, but I have no hesitation at all over dividing with people who claim to be Bible believers yet directly deny the teaching of Scripture on this point. The Bible has not left evolution as an option. It completely denies the possibility.
Blessings,
Derek
@Derek: I guess it is because I have not found them to be guilty of what I said in my first point. I can think of some blogs that are guilty, and mostly because they sling mud like the above comment from Michael Roberts. BioLogos seems to be passionate about what they are saying, but I haven’t gathered that they are wreckless. Of course, there are many contributors and articles that I haven’t read so this may not be universally true.
As to Rom 5.12 it is true that this must be taken seriously (if you divide over it, yes, I strongly disagree with you). Of course, in vv. 12-21 we have representatives and spheres, so in some sense Adam as analogous to humankind apart from Christ still works even if the representative figure was not an actual person in history, though I am fairly sure Paul understood him to be a real person in history. So it would be a question of whether or not Paul’s theological argument works even if Adam is merely a figurative representative.
In 1.18-32 I think it has been shown convincingly by scholars like Morna Hooker and James Dunn that Adam is behind what is being said there. So we have every human reliving the Adam story. Likewise, in 5.12-21 the main point is that all have sinned, like Adam, so the main theological point seems to rest of the fact that every human sins and therefore dies.
As far as “death” as a principle is concerned, there are many ways this can go, but it could be suggested that things died but humans (when they were fully human) could have lived forever had they not sinned. It’s complicated for sure.
@Brian,
Seems like a lot of twisting and turning to me, just to get around the clear implications of the text. But I understand that there are lots of folks who want to be committed to Scripture and are totally convinced of evolution, and they have to do something to make it work.
Hey, some of my theology is complicated, too!
On a related note, you might find this interesting:
http://evolutionarychristianity.com/
@Derek: It is not the easiest or most straightforward reading. That is one of the difficulties of Christian theologizing though. Scripture doesn’t always make it easy for us to think in our given, modern context, but I trust that the Spirit has inspired Scripture to contain the truth that we need even through the complicated means of human language.
Thank you for the link. I will take a look.
Brian,
Like you, it’s important as a Christian community that we realize there are no clear answers here. The very fact that the Genesis was not written, told as a story and recorded to give us a scientific explanation, or even a literal chronological description of the creation is enough to cause us all to be a little more humble in our conclusions, if one can confidently say they have conclusions.
No matter if we are talking Old Earth/New Earth Creationism, Theistic Evolution, ID, etc… how we understand these scriptures, and the various ways we can, there are some very real implications in what we read. I have some reservations that deserve (by me) to be studied out on this topic as well, leaving me quite unsettled. Parts of evolutionary theory I accept, other parts I find extremely speculative and even lacking in evidence (fossil record, for example — and any speculation on life’s exact origin). From a theological perspective, I find it critical that one’s view of Creation includes direct creation, the implication being the Imago Dei. I’m not sure how each of the many and diverse views concerning life’s beginning answer these points that the biblical story seems to present to us. Whether God literally used dust and made a play-dough man out of man, and literally breathed life or if that’s only a picture of how we are made us “stuff of the cosmos” and that God created man with a soul (or however else that’s explained), the idea of direction creation, for me, seems to be an important part of the Genesis story.
Also like you, I grimace when I see Fundies and elitist being so presumptuous and even arrogant on a topic that is as complex as this one.
@James: Indeed, the very language of man coming from dust is interesting and difficult. The basic theological point is brilliant: we are one with this earth and we go back to this earth lest God’s Spirit animates us. The narrative side is complex, yet at some very basic level in agreement with what evolution says: we came from the earth. Of course, either way, we Christians see God as being involved and “breathing” the life that took subhuman matter and made it human.
Brian, thank you for these thoughts, and Derek, thank you for zeroing in on one of the key texts showing how Genesis was understood by those who were bringing the New Testament into being. As a committed Christian who is deeply fascinated by science and its discoveries, I have long wrestled with trying to bring what Paul says about Adam into harmony with what evolutionary science tells us about human beginnings. Recently a synthesis dawned for me, and I have tried to explain it all in a series of posts, of which this is the introduction:
http://accurmudgeon.blogspot.com/2011/06/will-real-adam-please-stand-up.html
I hope you will find time to look at it, and see how I have tried to be faithful to Paul’s understanding of the Fall, while taking into account the latest findings about the size of the earliest human population.
This was both practical! Thank you. Awesome thoughts.
Check out http://www.reasons.org. These are “old earth creationists,” who do not doubt the antiquity of the universe, nor of life on earth, yet affirm specific creation of human beings, including a literal Adam and Eve (a version of what is sometimes called “progressive creationism”). In particular, they offer a “middle way” between insisting on a 6 or 7 thousand year old universe, and on the other hand accepting the grand naturalistic narrative being sold by scientists who are not philosophers of science, and do not properly appreciate the limits of their own knowledge.
And when you read books and articles by Reasons to Believe writers, you’ll note that they are especially concerned about the same thing you are, namely the division of Christians from one another over this issue. I know a couple of them personally, and I can affirm that, to them, the unity of the body of Christ is critical, and that they see their work as a way of affirming “all truth is God’s truth” while affirming a pretty literal reading of scripture, understood in an originalist way (i.e., what did the authors MEAN to be saying, and what did they believe themselves to be talking about).
@A.S. : Thank you for sharing. I will try to take a look at that link soon.
@moonchild: You’re welcome!
@harmon: I look forward to reading through some of these articles. I myself have often leaned toward a commitment that evolution was how God unfolded his creation while humans were part of his special design so it will be interesting to see what these articles say!
What’s interesting about this debate is precisely how it is not about personal or confessional beliefs about cosmology. The Butler Act and more contemporary legislation demanding “equal time” for intelligent design are attempts to mandate the teaching of confessional beliefs in public schools as science. There wouldn’t be a debate as such without the political component. Millions of people, for instance, believe in astrology. Astrological forecasts are published in papers around the world every day yet there is no grand ‘debate’ in the sense of our debate over evolution. The reason for this is that those devoted to astrology make no attempt for it to be taught as science in public schools as opponents of evolution do. Lets remember that the Templeton Foundation actually sought to fund scientific research in intelligent design and solicited research proposals, they simply never came in:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/04/weekinreview/04good.html
Interesting article.
I must admit, that if Genesis isn’t true at face value, it is logical for me to change to throw the bible away, as good as Jesus’ teachings were. I think we all live our lives & decisions, based on our world-view of origins, whether we aware of it.. or not.
That being said, the thing that challenges me, is that some of the Christian (creation) apologists I read, are so full of venom, character assassintation, hatred of people who have a different understanding of origins.. (and I understand some of the reasons for this mindset).. that I would think that any non-believer would just be disgusted & turned off any-thing related to God-Jesus. People respond not just to the strength to our argument, but also.. the heart behind our argument, & how we represent the creator
@Dan H: I’m not speaking of the debate over whether or not ID should be taught in schools. I am concerned more with whether or not evolution is compatible with Scripture and Christian doctrine. That is the main issue. I am sure this impacts the discussion on what should be taught in schools, but I have no interest in fighting for ID to be in the classroom.
@Andy: Very true, our attitude in relation to this matter is as important if not more as what side we come down on.
“I am concerned more with whether or not evolution is compatible with Scripture and Christian doctrine.”
I think it would depend on ones scriptural and doctrinal views. I think if one held to a ransom, satisfaction, substitutionary, or governmental view of the atonement the answer would be no. Moral influence, scapegoating or certain forms of Christus Victor view it wouldn’t be problematic at all.
I don’t believe you can hold to a historical Adam and Eve and still believe in evolution (theistic, intelligently designed, or materialistic).
@Dan: I don’t think any of those views of atonement are at risk if evolution is true. The point is that by Christ’s death our sins have been forgiven whether Adam is a figurative head or a literal one.
Brian,
I’m not sure how one can hold to the doctrine of original sin without a historical Adam and I believe the ransom, satisfaction, substitutionary, or governmental views of the atonement. Would you agree with this? If not exactly how would sin function as an inherited ontological corruption transmitted by a figurative head?
@Dan: In your first paragraph you stated that evolution doesn’t allow for these various atonement theories. I didn’t piece it together that your second paragraph completed the argument that evolution doesn’t allow for a historical Adam and therefore with no historical Adam you don’t see these atonement theories as possible.
Well, I think it is possible that God could have used billions of years of evolution to unfold creation (Gen 1.1-2 leaves that possibility open) only to decide at some point that he wanted to make a special creature from the earth, the human. So in some sense evolution and a historical Adam are compatible though I agree that if we are saying humans evolved through a natural process with no God involved then yes, there is little connection between these two narratives.
Now to whether or not those forms of atonement stand without a historical Adam: (1) Ransom, yes if we see the basic point that Paul makes in Rom 1.18-32 and 5.12-21 that all humans reenact Adam’s fall. This means all humans are Adams and all are captive to sin and Satan and therefore all need ransoming (though not all are ransomed, per se). (2) Satisfaction/Substitution, again, yes, if all humans reenact Adam then Christ paid for every human to have an opportunity to move from the Adamic sphere to the sphere of Christ by the Spirit and God is satisfied by Christ so that he will not make a human stay dead if they are in Christ but he will resurrect them by the Spirit. (3) Governmental is more difficult unless “Adam” merely represents all humans individually who are not right with God and Christ stands counter to all those alongside of the saints.
Original sin is a so-so issue for me since Paul sees all humans sinning and therefore being guilty of their own sin anyways.
Brian,
1) Evolution – I should have been more specific here perhaps modern evolutionary theory is pretty complex. What’s particularly problematic for the historical Adam is the process of Speciation (How new species arise). Speciation takes place among isolated populations and develops gradually. If humans developed by evolutionary processes and not the sort of divine intervention you have suggested they would not have been “created” (In a pair) so much as slowly developed (In a larger group). There wouldn’t be a single common ancestor. Now if one held a combination of evolution and creationism (Animals and Plants evolve but humans are created directly by God) this wouldn’t be a problem. Is that a common view among Evangelicals sympathetic to evolution?
2) Sin and Atonement – Brian this is helpful. What’s clear from your answers is that there would still need to be an account of sin that:
A) Does not make God responsible for sin.
B) Makes persons responsible for their sins.
C) Makes sin inevitable in the life of persons.
Original sin does a pretty good job of being such an account. But in order for original sin to function you need a historical Adam. You need a collective fall. An explanation for the tendency and inevitability of sin (Unless you adopt a Pelagian position), which a historical Adam provides while meeting the above criteria. The reason people re-enact Adam is because of what the historical Adam did and the ontological effects of eating the forbidden fruit.
So the question is, how do we explain the propensity and inevitability of sin without a historical Adam and a historical fall?
@Dan:
(1) It is hard to tell at this point whether or not evolution is gaining wide acceptance among evangelicals or if those who do accept it are speaking louder. I assume the former, especially people my age. If pressed I think I would be one who would say nature was created through evolution but that at some point somewhere God intervened to make humanity what it is (whether from dust or from one of the species of proto-humans that needed that extra “breath of God”).
(2) Since I lean toward a historical Adam this is only a guess, but I assume that those who deny his existence would answer that God is not responsible for our sin just like he was not responsible for the Adam character. We are all born with choice yet we all sin early. It may have the Pelagian element that we are not born dead in sin, but then it would depart on how that actually plays out by assuming that no one actually avoids sinning, other than Christ. Of course, now what to do with the reasoning behind the virgin birth narratives and Paul saying Christ came in the likeness of sinful flesh (Rom 8). Now you see why I feel a bit of obligation to maintain a historical Adam!
Dan H. said: “Now if one held a combination of evolution and creationism (Animals and Plants evolve but humans are created directly by God) this wouldn’t be a problem. Is that a common view among Evangelicals sympathetic to evolution?”
A.S. Haley’s article (see link above) is one attempt at this.
The problem I see in this whole discussion is . . . some Evangelicals are taking the current state of scientific theory as unassailable and unalterable “fact”. Scientific theory by its very nature is subject to change and is always subject to refutation as more evidence is discovered. Today’s evolutionary theories are quite a bit different from those that existed 10 years ago, and 50 years ago, and 100 years ago (most evolutionary “theory” is actually hypothesis, despite what they claim). The reason theories and hypotheses change so much is that scientists can only build them from the tiny slice of empirical facts they presently have available (tiny in comparison to all of the facts that exist, or even all of the facts relevant to the subject). As they discover more facts, they are forced to adapt – or even revoke – their theories and hypotheses. Sometimes newly discovered empirical facts will totally overthrow a long accepted theory. It’s happened over and over, that is what science is all about. What science can establish as empirical fact is very useful, but what is hypothesized/theorized is never absolutely certain. We seem to quickly forget this.
Now, place that bowl of jello next to the rock solid Truth of the Word of God. Which One do you trust more?
Any attempt to accommodate our view of Scripture to the current prevailing theories will likely force us to adjust further and further as the theories get adjusted – and we could potentially have our views totally destroyed as further empirical data is discovered. We could waste our time writing large volumes attempting to accommodate eternal and infallible Scripture to whirling bits of hypothesis that only last 100 years or less! I do not doubt that if scientists were given, by fiat, ALL of the pertinent facts, they would logically be forced to become literal 6 day creationists.
Who actually possesses all of the empirical facts regarding the origins of life and the universe? More to the point, who has ALL of the empirical facts that exist, period? The same One who also knows ALL of the history of our universe. When He gives an account of what He did, I think it wise to simply accept what He has said, and believe that he has the facts to back it up – whether we have uncovered those facts yet or not. This is the difference between science and revelation.
Really, the hubris of a puny man giving us very firm dates for this or that event in the remote past, millions and billions of years ago. It’s simply absurd for him to do it, but it might be even more absurd for us to take him seriously.
Blessings,
Derek
Pingback: August 2011 Biblical Studies Carnival « Daniel O. McClellan
a lot of responses here. I did like reading this because it reminded me that there are some people who have not made the step to believe in 6-day creation over evolution. With those who are here we should not put-forward evolution as a denial of Christ’s work for them on the cross. I would not say that this is a salvific matter. But when it comes to following the Bible and not assuming on what is absent to base our conclusions, evolution and God’s Word are incompatible. I’d have to agree with Derek here.
I am not sorry to have to disagree with you, Scott McKenzie, because I do not regard evolution and God’s word as in any way being incompatible. To the contrary: properly understood (at least for homo sapiens), evolution is necessary for the Fall to have any theological meaning.
It was evolution, in my view, that furnished the hominids who mated with Cain, Seth and any other children of Adam and Eve, once the latter two had been driven out of the Garden of Eden on account of their original sin. (Why should we have to assume that the human race was originally propagated by incest, in order to be able to believe in Genesis?) And it was precisely in that fact — of their being forced out into the much inferior evolved world (as of that date, with its animal behaviors producing animal lives that were “solitary, nasty, brutish and short” [quoting Thomas Hobbes]), and to have their descendants have no other option but to mate with those hominids (e.g., Cro Magnon homo sapiens) — that consisted of “the Fall” from Grace, i.e., having to intermingle their divinely created DNA with the lesser, thereto-evolved DNA of hominids, which both constituted “Adam’s Fall” and which eventually resulted in the present (and thoroughly fallen) human race.
In short, I think it is quite possible to rationalize current theories and evidence for evolution with Genesis, without having to turn the latter into a hand-waving type of figurative or symbolic fudge. The fact is that both Darwinian evolution and the account in Genesis need each other in order to be fully understandable in accordance with their respective claims.