As most of you know, I am not an naturalist evolutionist. I am not a Christian evolutionist either. My beliefs concerning the first chapters of Genesis are pretty traditional. When I teach through Genesis, I don’t have a Bible in one hand and a science book in the other. Neither do I feel the need to qualify everything I say with alternative prevailing scientific opinions. Genesis is a theological history, not a scientific book.
However, when the prevailing view of science seems to conflict with my interpretation, I take it very seriously, believing my interpretation might be off. I have a very high view of natural theology and appreciate what God has and is telling us through creation. But I don’t always have a high view of the prevailing view of science.
Issues concerning science and the faith are among the most polarizing issues there are. I would venture to say that today, as of 12:29am CST, Oct 28, 2010, they are the most polarizing. More so than all the Calvinist/Arminian stuff. More so than the Cessationist/Continuationist divide. Dare I say, even more so than politics?
Normally, people can be placed into one of five camps:
1. Young Earth Creationist: God directly created man and all that exists in six literal days no less than 10,000 years ago (give or take a few).
2. Old Earth Creationist: God directly created man sometime in the not too distant past, but the earth is very old.
3. Intelligent Design: If evolution happened, there are markers which evidence that God had to have guided the process through direct intervention.
4. Theistic Evolution: God set everything up so that natural selection would take care of everything without his intervention.
5. Naturalistic Evolution: There is no God. Evolution alone explains the existence of man.
The problem that I have with this issue is not so much my criticism of positions that I don’t hold, but the dogmatism that adherents of each position is characterized by. Rarely do I find a balanced, respectful, humble adherent in these areas. The closest I find is in the Intelligent Design and Old Earth Creation proponents. They are much easier to listen to. Almost always, every other position finds itself in the company of those who use heavy handed tactics to demean and discredit their “opposition.”
Answers in Genesis position seems pretty clear: If you don’t accept a young earth, you have compromised the faith and biblical truth.
Biologos’ position (from what I continue to read is getting pretty clear as well): If you don’t accept evolution, you are no better than flat-earthers.
Each side illegitimizes the opposition (often due to nothing more than frustration) by attacking the legitimacy of the position by unfair associations. At this point, they become radical (almost cult-like) and lose the audience (who is already skeptical to begin with).
Radical positions don’t start out this way. I think they start with pure motives and a clear head. However, when strong opposition comes our way, we can be backed into a corner of self-defense. Eventually we are forced to defend ourselves. In this defense, we can often give the impression, to ourselves and to others, that we are more sure of our stance than we actually are. Often, when we are backed into this corner, the cement settles and the corner is where we stay. Once that happens, what started out as a good thing becomes very counter-productive. We cease to be educators and critical thinkers and begin to teach from a catechism.
All the options save naturalistic evolution claim to be fighting for God’s truth. All have serious contentions with atheism. The theistic evolutionists at Biologos give the impression that they are the only valid defenders against atheism in an age of scientific progress. The creationists at Answers in Genesis give the impression that they are the only defenders of the Scripture in an age of compromise. They both end up fighting each other more than the more evident antagonists to the faith.
I take a position that the earth is young and that evolution did not happen. I could give you the reasons why, but I don’t really care enough to do so. Please don’t misunderstand. It is not that I don’t care enough about you, but that I don’t care enough about the subject. Yes, I am facinated by it. I find it important and interesting. But in the end, when I say “I take a postion that the earth is young etc.” don’t think it is black and white in my mind. I am not sure. If God were to send a prophet and supernatually inform me during breakfast tomorrow that he did indeed use evolution and that the earth was six billion years old, I would pause for about two seconds and then say, “Awesome. Can you pass me the syrup?” I don’t really have that big of a dog in this hunt. Frankly, I don’t think you should either.
It is simply not that big a deal.
“But, but, but, we are fighting the New Atheists. Dawkins and Hitchings and the like are all using evolution to prove that God does not exist. We have to stand strong against evolution.”
We don’t know as much as we like to think we know about this. The issues are simply not accessible. The Bible is not that clear on it (only two chapters devoted to the creation of all things?). Does your faith really hinge on how one interprets the first chapters of Genesis? Really?
“But, but, but, we are fighting the New Atheists. Dawkins and Hitchings and the like are all using evolution to prove that God does not exist. We have to show them that we are as scientifically astute as they are by accepting evolution and showing how it does not conflict with the Bible.”
While science can tell us a lot, the uniformatarianism that must be assumed for ancient times causes me to exit off the road at the first sign of civilization. If you want to continue with the assumptions, I will not stop you. But don’t expect everyone to follow you. Naturalistic evolutionists don’t know as much as you think. And don’t demean those who don’t agree with you, assigning them a place with flat-earthers. Those associations are paralell in concept only.
In my defense of Christianity, I will just stick to the resurrection of Christ and the fact that something cannot come from nothing. The fact that something cannot come from nothing gets me to God. The resurrection of Christ gets me to the Christian God. A simple two step process that does not require a PhD to get there.
The evidence for the historicity of the resurrection is accessible and, in my opinion, impossible to rationally dismiss. I have never met an atheist who believes in the resurrection of Christ. This is the central issue of Christianity. Convince them that Christ rose from the grave and their atheism will necessarily disappear. I promise.
And even if evolution happened, this does not account for the elephant that has always been in the room: where did it all come from? I have never met a naturalistic evolutionist who believed in personal transcendent First Cause for everything. This is the issue of God’s existence, not how he did it.
In short, I am more concerned with the polemics that are escalating then the “knowledge” that is gained. I get tired of so much dogmatism from all sides. I get tired of the central issues being put in time out while we work out these secondary issues. I get tired of people getting pushed into corners with clinched fists by their own breed while the true antagonist enjoys the show. I get tired of the heavy handed polemics which assign anyone who does not agree with them to the realm of dark age buffoons or anathematized heretics.
Kids, go to your room until you regain focus, tact, and grace. Is there an app for that?
That is where I stand on this whole creation/evolution circus.
71 replies to "Where I Stand on the Creation Evolution Circus"
Thanks Eric,
I understand yours (and others) skepticism with my flippant attitude at the breakfast table about this. I hope that my point, in the context of ultimate issues, is that the issues involved here don’t make Christianity true or false. God could have used evolution or he could have created it all 6000 years ago. If the resurrection of Christ happened, either way, our faith is secure. That is where I believe the center of all discussions should be. Then, in the context of belief in the resurrection, we can discuss and disagree about origins.
CMP, yes, your point was clear — I was among those who made a little fun of your syrup comment, and shouldn’t have.
I will say that one additional concern is riding on this issue: whether one accepts that Scripture is from God, and what authority one assigns to it. I’m not saying that this is a litmus test, but the way one explains how they reached their conclusion in this issue can be useful.
One contributor to this discussion kindly refers to my book “Who made God? Searching for a theory of everything”. Writing as a scientist and a Bible believer, I do try to sort out many of the issues and problems raised in this thread … at the same time dealing with Dawkins and Hawking (even though my book was published a year before “The Grand Design” it answers most of Hawking’s atheistic arguments). I also seek to advance a biblical world-view to set against the “new atheism”. Check it out on http://www.whomadegod.com.
[…] Michael Patton at the Parchment & Pen blog (Credo House Ministries) writes Where I Stand on the Creation Evolution Circus. Patton is a young-Earth creationist, but holds to that position loosely, and doesn’t like […]
Many contributors to this blog have questioned the importance of this issue. I will attempt to explain why this issue really IS very important – especially for devout Christians.
To begin, as it is commonly presented, the foundation of the theory of evolution is naturalism, the idea that everything in the natural world evolved ENTIRELY as a result of random, natural events. This theory very specifically excludes ANY involvement of the supernatural (that includes God, of course) in the process. Thus, in regards to origins, by definition the TOE is aggressively ATHEISTIC.
Next, the idea that everything in the natural world evolved entirely as a result of random natural – i.e. NOT supernatural – events is completely contrary to the teaching of origins in the Bible (In the beginning GOD created the heavens and the earth … etc. etc. etc.). Furthermore, the idea that evolution is true but God directed it (Theistic Evolution, Intelligent Design, Old Earth Creation, etc.) is utterly rejected by all secular proponents of the theory and bears no resemblance whatsoever with the theory of evolution that is taught in our nation’s public schools and almost all institutions of higher learning. Theistic evolution, in other words, is most definitely NOT taught in our nation’s public schools.
Since the atheistic version of the TOE maintains a virtual monopoly in regards to the teaching of origins in our nation’s public schools, therefore, every student that passes through these schools is brainwashed with a theory that ultimately teaches that there is no God – at least when it comes to origins.
Many contributors to this blog have questioned the importance of this issue. I will attempt to explain why this issue really IS very important – especially for devout Christians.
To begin, as it is commonly presented, the foundation of the theory of evolution is naturalism, the idea that everything in the natural world evolved ENTIRELY as a result of random, natural events. This theory very specifically excludes ANY involvement of the supernatural (that includes God, of course) in the process. Thus, in regards to origins by definition the TOE is aggressively ATHEISTIC.
Next, the idea that everything in the natural world evolved entirely as a result of random natural – i.e. NOT supernatural – events is completely contrary to the teaching of origins in the Bible (In the beginning GOD created the heavens and the earth … etc. etc. etc.). Furthermore, the idea that evolution is true but God directed it (Theistic Evolution, Intelligent Design, Old Earth Creation, etc.) is utterly rejected by all secular proponents of the theory and bears no resemblance whatsoever with the theory of evolution that is taught in our nation’s public schools and almost all institutions of higher learning. Theistic evolution, in other words, is most definitely NOT taught in our nation’s public schools.
Since the atheistic version of the TOE maintains a virtual monopoly in regards to the teaching of origins in our nation’s public schools, therefore, every student that passes through these schools is brainwashed with a theory that ultimately teaches that there is no God – at least when it comes to origins.
SteveB, you have a severe misunderstanding of biological evolution.
Michael
My comments stop at # 50. I posted a comment after this and it doesn’t appear. What is the problem?
Thanks.
Steve B,
There seems to be major problems with the comments on all of the threads since the move to new site.
To begin, as it is commonly presented, the foundation of the theory of evolution is naturalism, the idea that everything in the natural world evolved ENTIRELY as a result of random, natural events. This theory very specifically excludes ANY involvement of the supernatural (that includes God, of course) in the process. Thus, in regards to origins by definition the TOE is aggressively ATHEISTIC.
This is not true. The TOE is a naturalistic explanation: that is, the TOE attempts to explain life using natural laws. The Bible teaches that natural laws are God’s providence for us, and God acts through those laws (for example, He sends rain on the just and unjust, and He knit each of us together in our mothers’ wombs).
An atheist will foolishly say that God is absent from all things; a Christian must wisely reject that and claim that God is present to all things, including natural law.
I will add that just as the Christian believes that history includes miracles, so he also believes that history is largely not a miracle. God works through ordinary means ordinarily.
“Furthermore, the idea that evolution is true but God directed it (Theistic Evolution, Intelligent Design, Old Earth Creation, etc.) is utterly rejected by all secular proponents of the theory”
That’s untrue on so many points it’s ridiculous. First, many “secular proponents” admit that God may have directed evolution. Second, you’re selecting merely on the basis of whether a person denies the existence and power of God– of course such people deny He works through evolution. There are also many people who believe evolution and God, and the atheists don’t automatically make their claims false merely because they agree on evolution. (They also generally agree on things like the process of cellular division — does that make the believers’ opinions on cell division false as well?)
and bears no resemblance whatsoever with the theory of evolution that is taught in our…
(I just am NOT learning how long posts should be.)
and bears no resemblance whatsoever with the theory of evolution that is taught in our nation’s public schools and almost all institutions of higher learning.
You mean, aside from matching it in every historical detail?? What exactly is your criterion for judging here?
If you’re complaining about the lack of good theology in schools, I agree; but that isn’t the fault of evolution. I’ll point out that those schools also teach embryology without admitting that God knitted together each of us in our mothers’ wombs, and the problem isn’t the embryology is false — the problem is that the teachers aren’t allowed to give glory to God.
-Wm
I cannot agree that this topic is insignificant. It does seem to have far reaching theological implications. Was there death before the fall? If so why? Did God use an extremely cruel methodology to create man over millions of years or was it a beautiful, special creation as depicted in the Genesis account. I think a lot of Christians retreat from the topic due to their lack of scientific knowledge. The statements many of us make in regards to Evolution are rather embarrassing and betrays a huge misunderstanding of the science. The majority of people we come in contact with aren’t very scientifically literate either, so we are never really challenged. So, I cannot agree that it is a minor issue. If evolution (theistic or otherwise) is true then God’s nature is impacted greatly. Evolution is not a beautiful process as many theistic evolutionsists would try to describe it. IMO
Definitely a theistic evolutionist and Biologos follower. I’m also a fan of Gordon Glover’s videos linked above, as well as;
Human Genomics: Vestiges of Eden or Skeletons in the Closet?
Can an Evangelical Christian Accept Evolution?
“I cannot agree that this topic is insignificant.”
I do agree that it’s not a theological issue, except for people who adopt a side view that makes God a liar either in Scripture or His world or between the two.
“It does seem to have far reaching theological implications. Was there death before the fall? If so why?”
Yes; this is entirely clear. Why not? If you reject it because of the promise of Gen 2, why do you think God’s promise of death wasn’t fulfilled on that very day? The promise was of spiritual death on that day; not physical death hundreds of years later.
“Did God use an extremely cruel methodology to create man over millions of years or was it a beautiful, special creation as depicted in the Genesis account.”
OR did God perform a beautiful, special creation over millions of years? Still an open question; emotionally loaded language doesn’t change that.
“I think a lot of Christians retreat from the topic due to their lack of scientific knowledge.”
And some gain a little knowledge and stop there.
-Wm
reply to wm. tanksley
In #56 I said, “the foundation of the theory of evolution is naturalism, the idea that everything in the natural world evolved ENTIRELY as a result of random, natural events. This theory very specifically excludes ANY involvement of the supernatural (that includes God, of course) in the process. Thus, in regards to origins by definition the TOE is aggressively ATHEISTIC.”
You replied, “This is not true. The TOE is a naturalistic explanation: that is, the TOE attempts to explain life using natural laws.”
The truth is that, as I said, the TOE explicitly excludes the supernatural. A statement on “The Teaching of Evolution” from the NSTA (the National Science Teachers Association) states, “Because science is lilmited to explaining the natural world by means of natural processes, it CANNOT USE SUPERNATURAL CAUSATION IN ITS EXPLANATIONS” [emphasis mine]. Describing Spontaneous Origin, a popular biology textbook states that “Most scientists think that llife on Earth had a SPONTANEOUS ORIGIN, DEVELOPING BY ITSELF THROUGH NATURAL CHEMICAL AND PHYSICAL PROCESSES” [emph. mine].
Thus, what I said obviously IS true: the TOE very specifically excludes ANY involvement of the supernatural in the process.
Michael,
My thoughts on this subject mirror yours closely. It is one area that I have absolutely no passion and very little interest. I have often wondered why since I am very passionate on other subjects. Thanks for another great post. Maybe I am not so weird after all. Or maybe you are as weird as me.
Who knows?
Jim
SteveB, the problem is that the NTSA isn’t talking about “Evolution”; they’re talking about what they call science, and what I’d call “natural science”. And as they say, natural science cannot use the supernatural, because there is no supernatural science (due to the fact that the supernatural is personal).
In history, we can agree that God must have intervened in certain ways at certain times; but in natural science, we attempt to discover God’s laws, not His historical abrogations of them. This division of knowledge is arbitrary, but it has proven to be immensely fruitful, so long as we admit that the reason there ARE consistent laws discoverable by us is that God exists.
You cite Describing Spontaneous Origin, but that quote isn’t about the theory of evolution; you’d have to admit that it’s actually the book’s author’s opinion of the speculations of “most scientists”, not part of the theory of evolution (and, by the way, I’d say that it’s an awful quote, and I hope the rest of the text is better than that). Other scientists (including non-theistic ones) disagree on that point, and it doesn’t impact the theory of evolution because evolution does not include non-biology, and the beginning of biology is not itself biological.
Note that I classify the question of whether evolution could happen as a scientific question, while whether it DID happen is a historical question. And I include the Bible as a source of knowledge on both points (science and history), but I do not find it highly informative on either forms of this question.
You close with: “Thus, what I said obviously IS true: the TOE very specifically excludes ANY involvement of the supernatural in the process.”
Unfortunately, you didn’t quote anyone who was actually talking about a theory of evolution; your first quote was about science and was correct, and your second was about the opinions of scientists on naturalistic biogenesis and was unsourced and…
(Whoops, here’s the rest:)
Unfortunately, you didn’t quote anyone who was actually talking about a theory of evolution; your first quote was about science and was correct, and your second was about the opinions of scientists on naturalistic biogenesis and was unsourced and unverifiable.
-Wm
I think the debate really comes down to a few key areas.
One is the question, “Can something come from nothing?” and if the answer is “No” then we have no choice but to accept that there is an un-caused first cause that preceded both matter and time, meaning it is not comprised of matter and not subject to time, thus the exact properties of God.
Two) is the presence of life itself. If we can establish that non-living atoms cannot, in any way, come to form life and consciousness, then it’s rational to assume that consciousness came from outside our “closed system” called the universe. It came from a third party who is not subject to our universal laws, because He lives outside of them.
All this, I believe, points to theism, but not necessarily Christian theism. But when you take the Bible and see the remarkable prophecies that have come true and the historicity of Jesus, Christianity is the only religion which stands. God bless you all.
Tidus. Hmmm. I wonder if I have a fellow Final Fantasy fan here.
Anyway, evolutionists can win the battle and lose the war here since they have to start with pre-existing matter. Existence is the question and not even an eternally existing universe or an eternally existing multi-verse is a defeater for theism. Both would depend on a theistic concept in fact.
I have been surfing online more than 3 hours today, yet I never found any interesting article like yours. It’s pretty worth enough for me. In my opinion, if all website owners and bloggers made good content as you did, the internet will be much more useful than ever before.