Now by way of introduction, it is important to note that the word evolution can be used for anything from the process of natural selection - whereby animals/plants adapt to their local environment - through to the belief that everything evolved from one single-celled organism (thus man from monkeys...). Here, we'll be using evolution in the latter, more controversial, sense!
So, what is the disagreement between Mr Evolution and Mr Creationist and how should we respond? Well, in a massively simplistic way, the argument goes something like this:
Mr Creationist: "No, Mr Evolution, the Bible is the infallible word of God, so if it says that God created the world in 7 days then he did! You’re theory is wrong, your so-called evidence is flawed and the Bible is right!"
So how do we respond? Do we have to side with one or the other? Is it really a case of science vs. faith?
Well, we do also have a third option in the form of Little Miss Creatiolution (not a real word!). She would say something along the lines of the following:
Little Miss Creatiolution: "You see, the problem with Mr Creationist is the way he interprets the Bible. He comes to the Bible assuming that the writer of Genesis was as concerned with the scientific processes whereby the earth was formed as people are today whereas, in fact, the person who collated this account wouldn’t even have realised the world was round or that there was more of it than he’d heard of! Furthermore, Mr Creationist assumes that the writer intended to present historical facts, whereas actually he was simply presenting truth in the form of a meaningful myth. Mr Creationist is basically trying to force the Bible to answer questions it wasn’t addressing. In reality, the Bible simply answers the “why” question and evolution the “how” question; so we can hold our scientific views nicely alongside our faith by recognising that they simply answer different questions."
So what do we think? Little Miss Creatiolution seems to have found a way to hold science and faith nicely together (albeit in two different hands!) so is her view the best way forward? Or should we stick to the creationist view? Well, I'm going to let you decide that, but I would like to chuck in a few things for us to think about!
1. We can't take the Genesis account completely literally as Gen. 2 disagrees with Gen. 1 in terms of the order in which different things were made. Further, Gen. 1:1-2:3 is highly poetic whereas the account in Gen. 2 is much more story-like in style!
2. The theory of evolution is just that - a theory! Therefore even amongst scientists there is a range of opinions (see, for example, the Explore Evolution book and/or one of my favourite Friends clips!!!).
3. "Myth" isn't really the best word to use when talking about the Genesis account because, although technically it can mean a story which expresses truth, most people see a myth as simply a made-up story - perhaps with an accompanying moral. John Drane, for example, therefore suggests that the term "faith-story" is more appropriate (see Drane, Introducing the OT, page 265).
4. Although Gen. 1-3 is often viewed as a "faith-story" rather than a literal historical account, when we come to the Flood in Gen. 6 and Tower of Babel in Gen. 11, we find that there is archeological evidence to suggest that these accounts are based on historical events (see Drane, Introducing the OT, page 262).
5. As Little Miss Postmodern (see session 1!) has helpfully pointed out, the divide between faith and science is not so clear cut as people once thought! For example, scientists don't approach science neutrally or objectively, but rather in a certain way based on their perceptions of what is and isn't scientific!!! Further, just as a person's world-view affects their approach to science; so too does science affect people's world-view. Thus, for example, the theory of evolution (in its everything evolved from a single-cell form!) has a world-view attached to it that does appear to contradict the biblical account in a couple of significant ways. Firstly, within evolution, creation comes through death rather than being the deliberate work of God and instantly declared "good!" Secondly, humans are a slightly more advanced animal rather than set apart as made in God's image thus stewards of creation. Now, this is not to say that as Christians we can't believe in evolution as an answer to the "how God made the world" question. But rather that, if we do, then we do need to think carefully about how to reconcile this view with a commitment to the truth of Scripture.
Thanks for this - the course has been great so far!
ReplyDeleteI've got a particular interest in the issues around creation / evolution and so on as my research is in software which uses the principles of evolution to solve problems. Very interesting dynamics and there are more than a few in my field who think evolution disproves the existence of God! There's a big challenge in responding to that in the right way.
My minister from two churches ago is Alistair Donald - now chaplain at Heriott-Watt University in Edinburgh. He's got a scientific background and speaks at lot of sense on this subject; he's offered the suggestions below for people who'd like to read more about this stuff.
Sandy
---------------------------
The best book for a general readership IMO is Lee Strobel's "The Case for a Creator". You may know of John Lennox's excellent "God's Undertaker?" which is the best for a more technically-minded reader. You should definitely read it yourself if you've not already done so, as I'm sure the mathematical/information chapters would resonate! He's also got a recently published slim volume for a more general readership called "God and Stephen Hawking" - basicaly looking at Hawking's worldview and mode of arguing rather than the details of his theoretical physics!
At an "in-between" level another book I'd highly recommend is Jame's Lefanu's "Why Us?" It's beautifully written and altogether excellent, dealing with the limitations of eg genome research, brain scans, without getting too technical.
Thanks Sandy. What's his overall view? Is is summarisable?!
ReplyDeleteFor some reason my original reply doesn't seem to have appeared!
ReplyDeleteI think his view is essentially following the scientific perspective on things like the age of the universe, but that it was guided by God (this accounting for information such as that within DNA arising out of random disorder). Based on my work making use of evolutionary concepts in a completely different domain, I'm inclined in that direction too. Far to much of my time is spent making evolution work for it to manage by itself!