“Can you still be a Christian and believe in Evolution?”
The DJ answered quickly with a matter of fact: “No” and moved on to the next topic. For reasons that will become clear in the course of this blog, and future ones, this irritated the hell out of me! As I started dialling in to address this guy, he ended his show. So I present here the fictional conversation we may have had:
In your Philosophy, God created the world and everything in it, right? So he made the sun, moon, trees, air, water and everything else? He also designed it so that liquid behaves like a liquid, right? That is, he made it with the characteristic that it would flow downwards to the lowest point thanks to another of his creations; Gravity?
This is truly remarkable! We take it for granted, of course, because we are used to it, but it is truly amazing. Quick question: where in the Bible does it explain this phenomenon? Which book deals with the intricacies of fluid dynamics? None?
Similarly, God created electricity! He designed all matter using tiny building blocks we now understand as atoms. We also now can describe and utilise various parts of the atom: we know that electricity is the flow of electrons from one atom to the next; we can explain how this ingenious creation works. Amazing! Another question: where in the Bible does it explain electricity?
Neither of these phenomenon are explained in the Bible because that is not the purpose of the book! The Bible is an answer to the big “Why” question of life. It gives purpose and meaning, hope and instruction for living. It is not a catalogue of “How”. How does water flow as it does? Well, scientific method has explained the difference between solids, liquids and gasses. How did God make electrical charge occur? Again, scientific enquiry has shown us the answer of the electron. Neither of these answers rules out the hand of God in creation, they just explain how He did may have done it. The evolution debate is a similar scenario: a potential answer to the how, not the why.
So why then is the evolution debate a more contentious one? Why do people get upset about this explanation of the “How” and not the others? Is it because the theory insinuates we evolved from monkeys, and according to Christian philosophy we are made “in Gods image”? Is it because: “God is not a monkey!!!”? Again, surely this is faulty logic? Manufacturing processes involve many stages; couldn’t the manufacture of the human species have involved many stages? (And isn’t this self-important notion of the human species hubris in the first place? (Particularly considering Gods own admitted love of even the lowly Sparrow.))
Surely denying evolution out-right is tantamount to saying:
“I believe God created me. I don’t know how he did it, but it definitely wasn’t like that!”
Another question: why not? Why not that way? Can any human claim to understand the mind and workings of God?
On the other hand: why does the other side of the argument cling so strongly to the idea? 800 years ago we knew the earth was flat; we KNEW it! What will we know tomorrow?
Maybe its time we stopped fighting about these things and started getting excited about the possibilities of learning and understanding the universe we live in. Maybe it’s time we stopped getting scared every time our conceptions were challenged. Maybe its time we realised we don’t know all that much yet. Maybe its time to understand what the difference is between religion and science, where these things meet, and why we need both of them.
*************************************************************
Thanks for joining me on this journey! Read on by clicking here: http://talkingattheceiling.blogspot.com/2011/07/theosophical-anthropology-distance-to.html
*************************************************************
Galileo said it best "Scripture teaches us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go."
ReplyDeleteYou said it best – “The evolution debate is a similar scenario: a potential answer to the how, not the why”. And herein lies the debate. As vehemently as ill-informed Christians reject the potential notion of the “how” of evolution, so too, ill-informed evolutionists reject the potential notion of the “why” of the Scriptures.
ReplyDeleteI say ill-informed in both cases for the following reasons:
Firstly – Evolutionists seamlessly jump from microevolution (explaining natural selection and changes in organisms to adapt to their environment) to macroevolution (an untested theory concerning the origins of life from one single organism). Eg. After a series of microevolutionary changes, a frog may be larger or changed in colour, but it is still a frog—not a fish or a lizard. The macroevolutionary theory of a frog becoming a fish or a lizard remains exactly that – a theory.
Secondly – Evolution as debated commonly, presumes this seamless jump as mentioned before and arrives, without any empirical evidence at the conclusion of the origins of man and the so-called “Big Bang Theory”.
Thirdly – 2 Peter 1-4 reads as follows: 1 Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ: 2 Grace and peace be multiplied unto you through the knowledge of God, and of Jesus our Lord, 3 According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue: 4 Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.
Verse 3 summarizes adequately what the Scriptures are meant to do – instruct us in all things pertaining to life and godliness.
Without a careful consideration of the integral message of Scriptures, the evolutionist invariably rejects the potential “why” in favour of the “how” – throwing out the proverbial Baby with the muddied bath water.
A last note: (And isn’t this self-important notion of the human species hubris in the first place? (Particularly considering Gods own admitted love of even the lowly Sparrow.))
If 2 Peter 1-4 doesn’t adequately explain the elevated place that God reserves for the human species, then perhaps a more thorough, contextual examination of God’s “own admitted love of even the lowly Sparrow” will:
Matthew 10:28-33 reads as follows:
28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. Jer 1:8; Luke 12:4; 29 Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and one of them shall not fall on the ground without your Father.7 30 But the very hairs of your head are all numbered. 1Sam 14:45; 31 Fear ye not therefore, ye are of more value than many sparrows. 32 Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven. Mark 8:38; Luke 9:26; Luke 12:8; 2Tim 2:12; 33 But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.
Quoting Scripture out of context is always a dangerous thing and in this case also shows how effective it is as a “double-edged sword” – if we take it as gospel that God loves the lowly sparrow, then should we not consequently take it as gospel that He requires us to confess Him as Saviour – to fear Him as the One who is able to destroy “both soul and body in hell”?
Absoluetly Five solas! Ill informed is the case- both sides seek heavily to be held as the ultimate victor! The ultimate truth, if you will. But this is flawed logic! It assumes an all encompassing paradigm! The two are, as illustrated, "about" different things.
ReplyDeleteAs you said: there are ill-informed people on both sides! (Richards Dawkins himself, though claiming to be an 'atheist' or 'without belief', BELIEVES in evolution! Any blind devotion of concept, while automatically writing off any other is complete lunacy! He 'believes' in evolution, and thus can only see evidence that supports his belief. Hardly a scientific method!
Finally: my sparrow comment was perhaps a bit flippant! I apologise, but I promise to address that kind of approach in a later blog.
I must say for the record that I don't consider myself an authority at all! I am just talking about things I've experienced in my own journey- thanks for your input based on yours!
Zill – again you hit the nail on the head – both sides seek heavily to be held as the ultimate victor...the ultimate truth. However, their points of departure differ immensely! The evolutionist bases his truth, perhaps not on flawed logic, but certainly on flawed science. The jump from microevolution to macroevolution is based on theory, not empirical evidence. It is in this regard that I also termed some Christians “ill-informed”. The debate that they often become embroiled in and which ultimately results in the emphatic “no” as in the case of your radio DJ is usually as a result of failing to recognize that the evidence for microevolution had become super-imposed as evidence for macroevolution.
ReplyDeleteThe Christian, however, bases his truth, not on theory or science, but on the assumption that the Scriptures that instruct him was revealed by the one and only true God. This doesn’t assume an all encompassing paradigm, but actually necessitates one! Your term “ultimate truth”, for the Christian actually reads “absolute truth”. Although one might be critical of this point of departure it certainly cannot be called “flawed logic”. If God is who He reveals Himself to be in Scripture – omniscient and omnipotent, then His revelation of Himself in Scripture and His instruction to His church should be beyond doubt.
The Reformer’s matrix “Sola Scriptura” alludes to the Word of God as inerrant and infallible. You might call this “blind devotion of concept, while automatically writing off any other” as “complete lunacy”, but the fact is – the Christian God cannot be separated from the revelation of Himself – the Bible. Any dilution of or departure from this paradigm, either by Philosophy, Legalism, Asceticism, Pragmatism or Mysticism (as in the case of the Colossians) causes a complete disconnect between Messenger and Message. Some might read this as “blindness” while others interpret it as “faith” – a complete trust and confidence in God as He has revealed Himself in the Scriptures.
I am a Christian but walk in this world with my mind wide open. BUT have you heard of the Aquatic Theory - See Elaine Morgan's talk on Ted.com, it would open your eyes http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/elaine_morgan_says_we_evolved_from_aquatic_apes.html
ReplyDeleteJerry Berry! I'll take a look.
ReplyDeleteThanks for getting involved!
You have an interesting way of converting some deeply profound thoughts into easy-to-grasp, "simple" terms. That's not an easy feat!
ReplyDeleteThanks Hope, I try - and thanks for joining the conversation. Keep reading!
ReplyDelete