 |
 |
|
 |
 |
Previous
article
| Next
article
This article is partly written in reply to Matthew Moxon’s article Theistic Evolution (Issue 34), and partially written from a personal desire to acquaint readers with another side of the topic of discussion.
I would like to add that in no way is this an attack of Matthew Moxon’s views, merely a statement of my views. As a committed Christian and an (enthusiastic!) Biology student, I feel as qualified as any to state my case in this subject. The ‘Creation/Evolution’ debate has always interested me because it overlaps the most important thing in my life (my faith), and another major area of my life (my degree/interests). In this article I have tried to express my views as coherently as possible, but I realise that some readers will be confused or angered by it. I only ask that you accept it as a statement of my personal opinion.
‘Theistic Evolution’, as it has been termed, is a simultaneous belief in God as a Creator, and evolution as His method of creating. I do not believe this compromises either the concept of creation or evolution. It is very true that there is no mention of evolution in the Genesis account of the creation of the world. But then, Genesis was never intended as a scientific text — if it was, then it is woefully lacking in detail and information! Would the Jews (as the original audience of Genesis) have understood a detailed account of evolution? Would we understand it, even today? Did the Jews have any evidence for evolution in their possession (as we have fossils etc.)? To my mind, the difference between Genesis and what God actually did is equivalent to the difference between a scientific paper and its abstract. The abstract gives an overview of the paper’s content, without going into minute detail — it is therefore accessible to everyone, while only a scientist would be able to fully understand the whole paper. We can never fully understand the workings of God, and He knows this. He chooses to reveal enough of Himself to inspire awe and worship, without revealing so much of Himself that it would blow our minds trying to understand Him. The little we know about evolution is incredible enough, but we, as humans, would be unable to grasp the full complexity and detail of its mechanism and execution. God told us the basics in Genesis, and I think that as our scientific knowledge has advanced, He has been pleased to reveal a little more of His amazing and complex planning in the form of geological discoveries and archaeological remains.
Some of the most convincing proofs of this are fossils. We have found skeletons, imprints of animals and plants and even footprints in the rocks - this is undeniable. Genesis 1:24 talks about the creation of living creatures on the land in a day — yet it is abundantly clear from fossils and rocks that life forms (and the earth) developed over many millions of years. We are therefore left with two possible conclusions: either that God id revealing a little more of his methods to us through these discoveries (in addition to what He has already told us in Genesis) or that He purposely created these rocks and fossils to appear to be millions of years old and to appear to show progression of life in order to mislead us. I find the latter far more undermining to my faith in a loving God than the former, and I have to say that I could never bring myself to trust and love a God who could be so devious and purposely manipulative.
While I do not believe that Genesis was intended as a scientific text, this is not to say that I do not believe in the fall of mankind. You don’t write something in the abstract of a paper which doesn’t appear in the paper itself, and so the imagery used in Genesis to depict man’s sin and departure from God, becomes no less valid when viewed in God’s wider picture (which we can neither see or understand). There is no doubt that men fell away from God - a glance at our society reveals this. Christ’s cross therefore essential to our salvation — I wouldn’t be a Christian if I didn’t believe this! — and evolution in no way detracts from this basis of our faith.
I certainly believe that the Bible should not be bent around science. But for Christians to bury their heads in the sand and to ignore science and its discoveries is, in my opinion, insupportable and dangerously naive. We are “in the world but not of the world” (John 15:19), and what the world discovers is of relevance to us even if our interpretation of the discovery is different to that of the world. You cannot ignore science, and in my view, Christianity has suffered more from deliberately ignorant Christians disclaiming all science that it ever suffered from science’s discoveries. Christianity — God — is relevant to everything, but how can we show this to the world if we show ourselves to be so closed and unyielding as to refuse to listen or believe science simply because it challenges ancient Christian traditions? Theology is not fixed but changing and developing all the time. It is our interpretation of what we know of God, and is therefore altered by time and modern knowledge. Past societies laid down their theology in the light of their knowledge. Our knowledge has progressed, and I would argue that our theology should progress also. Can God not reveal Himself through science? I believe that He can — and that he does.
Perhaps it would be interesting to note here that Darwin, so-called ‘Father of Evolution’ was a Christian, and struggled with his Origin of Species, knowing what it would mean for Christianity. But at the end of the day he had to tell what he had seen, and his explanations for these observations. Did this make any less a Christian?
Evolution is only a theory — but a theory with an immense amount of evidence to back it up (both fossil evidence and modern-day observations). For an atheist, evolution can be used to ‘disprove God’, but for me, I find that my faith in God and my wonder and awe at His creation are reinforced by what I learn of evolution. A God who creates and sustains a world, who takes pleasure in overseeing its development, who has lovingly designed life processes and their connections to each other, and who is intimately involved in every step of life and its development is, to me, a most fantastic God, and one who truly deserves praise. I don’t deny that God is capable of creating the world (as it is) in six days, but I do shrink from limiting Him too much. What, after all, is a day to God (Psalm 90:4)? As the Reverend James Maurice Wilson (Canon of Worcester in 1925) says:
The wholehearted acceptance of evolution as a fact has profoundly affected my own religion, making religion a larger and more harmonising element in my life, … [making] me more consistent in belief … [being] a constant … inspiration to action.
As a Christian, I do not believe that evolution is something to be scared of, or that it is something which undermines our faith. After all, is our view of God seriously altered if we accept evolution? If it is, it can only be for the better, relieving us of silly notions of bringing God down to our level and of understanding His works and character fully. I believe that this insight into God’s love and power strengthens our relationship and love for Him, rather than the opposite. Bearing in mind that we can never fully understand God, I find it amazing that He has revealed so much to us — and I can’t wait to get to heaven so that I can ask many more questions of our Creator! For me Creation and Evolution are not mutually exclusive concepts. As a Biologist I have to accept the abundant evidence before me and believe in evolution. As a Christian I acknowledge that God’s hand is in everything, and the more I see and learn of His incredible creation, the more I am amazed that He cares so much about me.
In summing up, I would like to quote Rev. Wilson again — he seems so much more eloquent than I am!
… so orderly and interrelated is this Cosmos that it [is] impossible that it, including ourselves, should be, what someone has called it, ‘the outcome of accidental collocation of atoms’. Universality and Regularity in method do not exclude or replace Purpose and Design. Why then not regard evolution as the method (it is only a method) of a Creative mind?
Thanks to the Rev J M Wilson for writing a most excellent essay in Evolution in the light of modern knowledge and for agreeing so completely with all my thoughts and ideas!
Previous
article
| Next
article
|
|
|
|
|
Last modified: 25th November 2005