Genesis and Evolution (2)

If it were proved beyond that shadow of any doubt that evolution is true, would that destroy your faith? Some believe that if evolution is true then the Bible cannot be true. So we might as well throw the Bible away if Darwin turns out to be right. This assumes that the creation narrative in Genesis must be understood as a literal account of origins. So faith would stand or fall with the historicity and scientific accuracy of Genesis 1. If the earth wasn't created in seven literal days then how can we trust anything in our Bibles? So the argument goes. 

But what if the point of Genesis is not to teach history or science? What if the point is theological? (imagine that). What if the author's intent was a refutation of mythological views that threaten the dignity of both deity and humanity?

It would not destroy my faith if evolution turned out to be true. I would simply conclude that Genesis 1 is not to be taken literally, but metaphorically. What it communicates regarding the divine and human natures is the real point.

Now, in case you're wondering, I'm not sold on evolution so I don't think it will be proved. In fact, it has not been proved to a good number of scientists who just don't get the press or opportunities that the evolutionists receive. It's a myth that all scientists are on the same page with this. My personal reluctance to accept evolution has less to do with the Bible than it does with the science of systems. As Patrick Mead stated in a recent blog post, systems must be complete in order to function. If I follow his meaning, we could point to complex systems such as beehives, the human eye, or complex eco-systems as examples of systems in which everything must work right from the get-go. To imagine these systems as evolving and adapting with all the mechanisms perfectly falling into place is a bit too much for me to swallow. I also have a problem with four-legged creatures becoming aquatic and the other way around. 

My problems with evolution do not mean that I have a problem with believers who accept it. I don't think a person's view on the historicity of Genesis 1 and 2 is essential to being a Christian. Some believers are persuaded that a rejection of evolution, based on evidence for an old earth, means being intellectually dishonest. While I may disagree, I do not discount these folks as my brothers and sisters. We have made far too many issues a test of fellowship and we've been far too dogmatic about issues the Bible wasn't written to address.

The problem is not evolution per se, but the problem is naturalism. It's the philosophy that everything came into being by chance without any intelligent design behind it. Scientist Jonathan Wells, when interviewed for Lee Strobel's The Case for a Creator, said that evolution is simply "materialistic philosophy masquerading as empirical science" (p.41). Many evolutionists are indeed naturalists in the philosophical sense of the term. They only believe what they think can be empirically verified. They begin by presupposing that everything must have a natural explanation since the supernatural obviously doesn't exist. Many of them do employ evolutionary theory as an argument against the existence of God. 

While some Christian apologists have really reached in their attempts to fit the Bible into a scientific mold, the naturalists have also reached when trying to make everything harmonize with Darwin's theories. Neither attempt at explaining origins is free from contradictions or holes.  

So can Genesis be employed to refute world-views of which the author was not aware? I think so, if the world-view in question either leaves God out of the equation, views him as synonymous with creation, or associates creation too closely with God. So pantheism, deism, and even naturalism would all contradict what is taught in Genesis concerning God's immanence and transcendence. But it's unnecessary to insist that being "sound" means understanding Genesis as literal history and science.

Comments

[Wendy]

Good post, Wade. My faith is in Jesus, not in MY (probably flawed) interpretation of Genesis.

[Wade Tannehill]

Wendy,

Thanks for the encouragement.

[Frank]

Wade,

I obviously read and then commented on your first post before getting to this one. Now that I've read this one, I can only guess that you're getting tired of never being mentioned at a lectureship :-) All joking aside, like you I find myself in a sort of no-man's land compared to many scientists and conservative Protestants. I'm interested in reading a few Roman Catholic scholars on these issues because my understanding is that they sort of don't claim any team in the tournament and are far from being anxious or conflicted about science and the Bible.

As always, good thoughts here, well-worded.

[Wade Tannehill]

Frank,

As always I appreciate your kind words. Catholics aren't the only ones who seem neither anxious nor conflicted about science and the Bible. Nor are mainline Protestants too excited about the issue. The debate seems restricted to evangelical circles.

[Frank]

Wade, along this line one reason I'm interested in Catholic scholarship is because they don't seem interested in putting down the other side, which is typical of both mainline and evangelical treatments.