Human Evolution and Theology

It’s been over six months since my last entry on this blog. My apologies to the many who continue to check in here, only to find the well still dry! There are many reasons for my writing hiatus, most of them personal. But I hope to resume writing, and today I offer this summary of a recent Biologos article, together with a brief facebook exchange from yesterday.

My friend, Dennis Venema, is an Associate Professor of Biology at Trinity Western University in Langley, B.C., and a Senior Fellow of the Biologos Foundation. Yesterday, he posted a fascinating description of early human speciation at the Biologos site. Evolution doubters confused about microevolution versus macroevolution would do well just to read Venema’s opening paragraphs about how new species develop, and when they cross that invisible line demarcating a “new species”. Venema’s main thrust is how genetics is showing the way to a deeper understanding of how the very early Hominid species spread out across the globe, and how they interacted, and interbred. But Venema’s driving passion, much like my own, goes beyond elucidation of our distant past; he longs for the conversation which evangelical Christians must engage which is less about natural history, and more about its theological implications. Venema closes his article with this:

"Even as I stand amazed in what God has revealed to us about our origins through science, I know that this new information will be difficult for some within the evangelical community to accept. Moreover, it is almost certain that some Christian groups, unfortunately, will misrepresent this data to their constituents (whether intentionally or not), and thus spread confusion that hinders the needed theological conversation. Still, I have reason for hope: God has seen it fit to reveal this information to us, and that suggests that He believes the evangelical Christian community is ready for this conversation to happen. As [Biologos President] Darrel [Falk] mentioned at the end of his recent piece, we at BioLogos want to assist our evangelical sisters and brothers in this conversation in any way we can, in full confidence that it can be done in an edifying way ..."

I posted a link to Venema’s article yesterday, and one of my facebook friends commented with several questions. My friend, Tim, is an unbeliever, and puzzles over how or why believers who understand our evolutionary past persist in efforts to reconcile “the biblical narrative from Genesis” with “what science has discovered.” Tim writes, “I just don't get this insane drive to keep believing something that is completely contradictory to the facts.” He goes on to quote Venema’s amazement “in what God has revealed to us about our origins through science.” Tim is incredulous, even infuriated, at such a statement. He writes, “God didn’t reveal anything. Man looked around observed tested and discovered. What God supposedly revealed about the natural world in Genesis is in short a fairy tale. Simply put when it comes to explaining how why things work the way they do or are the way they are its Science a whole whole lot and God zero.”

My answer to Tim’s concerns follows:

“A lot of really good questions, Tim. I'll try to answer succinctly, though each of your questions is worthy of an essay!

“People like Venema and myself make little attempt to align current understandings of natural history and science with the narrative of Genesis in the way you presume. (Some believers do, e.g. Hugh Ross, and his organization "Reasons to Believe" <www.reasons.org>.) Rather, Genesis appears to us to be an ancient text that provides a wealth of early theological insights within it's contemporary cosmological framework, but which contains little or no supernaturally supplied information about science, origins, or natural history.

“But what you are really asking is why maintain faith in any Biblical revelation in light of the Bible's lack of historical/scientific preciseness. I cannot presume to answer for Dennis, but I can tell you that for me, this is a choice that is rooted in my faith in the person of Jesus, who is called in the Bible the "Word of God", and as such is the ultimate expression of God, the ultimate divine revelation. And the Bible, in my opinion a substantially accurate source of history concurrent with its writing, tells us much about Jesus prospectively in the O.T., concurrently in the Gospels, and retrospectively in the rest of the N.T. When I couple together the things we are learning from science about origins, evolution, physics, etc. with what is revealed in Jesus and in the book about him, the results are exciting, refreshing, and captivating (you can read some of my observations on my blog, OutsideTheBox).

“Your question about "God revealing through science" is a fair question. There is a verse in Proverbs that says "It is the glory of God to conceal a matter; to search out a matter is the glory of kings." That is, God's revelations in nature are concealed, below the surface, awaiting discovery. Science (which you may know was largely driven by theistic belief for much of it's history) is man uncovering the secrets of the Creator. The Biblical presumption is that all of nature is God revealing, and we call this "Natural Revelation".

“So your score card ("science a whole lot, God zero") presumes that God spoon feeds information to us, or that Christians believe that he does this. While some Christians may think that way, I assure you that Venema does not. Nor do I.”

Your comments are welcome ...

Christianity & Science: Are they Compatible?

It seems that most of my on-line conversations now happen on facebook pages. From time to time, I may republish some of those conversations here to reach my blog readers.

The following is an exchange which occurred when a friend posted a link to an article which posed the question,

"Can You Believe in Christianity and Evolution?"

"Josh" gave his answer,

christianity and science can be reconciled... but it has to be good, true science for the reconciliation to work! :-)

... to which I replied,

I found Josh's earlier comment interesting:

Josh, would you also agree with me if I rephrased that?

"Christianity and science can be reconciled... but it has to be good, true Christianity for the reconciliation to work"

From my perspective as a follower of Jesus and a follower of science, science is more often "true and good" than many versions of christianity. Conclusive, objective, and empirical evidence should not be asked to bend to align with subjective, debatable interpretations of the Bible. Would you agree?

When apparent conflicts appear between hard science and our version of Christianity, which should give way?

Shibboleth

Forty-two thousand. The number of retreating warriors of the Israelite tribe of Ephraim slain because they couldn’t pronounce the S-word. Well, not that S-word. But it might have worked just the same. Thirty-four hundred years ago (or so), the in-fighting between Israelite tribes came to blows, and the Ephraimites invaded the lands of their brother tribes living across the Jordan River in Gilead. They lost the war, and the surviving troops, forty-two thousand of them, retreated. But the Gileadites cut them off, securing all the river crossing fords. But a Jew is a Jew, and they could not tell an Ephraimite from a Gadite or a Manassehite; they all look the same! How could they determine whether a traveller was a member of the retreating invasion force? Well, it just so happened that Ephramites were afflicted with a mass speech impediment, and they could not say sh*t worth sh*t. So the Gileadites picked a word, any word, starting with SH. They happened to choose “shibboleth”, a word which means nothing particularly interesting, but was impossible for the poor tongue-tied Ephraimites to pronounce. They used the word as a password, a test for any would-be west-bound crossers at the fords. When anyone attempting to cross the river answered the password request, “sibboleth,” he was put to the sword then and there!

There may be a lesson here about teaching diction to our children. But more to the point, this word, “shibboleth,” has been passed down and still to this day it refers to those group-think words or phrases, those passwords of practice and speech, which distinguish the insiders from the outsiders. Shibboleths are like badges of belonging. Pronounce them just right, and you are “one of us!” Mispronounce them, and watch out.

Funny thing about shibboleths. Their usefulness in identifying insiders often outlives any connection to the veracity, or the importance of the actual identifying issue. That is, the shibboleth functions to maintain group-think, despite overwhelming evidence that the shibboleth is a based on mistaken, or false assumptions.

The insidious power of the shibboleths of American evangelicalism is something that many free-thinking, analytical, and informed Christians experience first-hand. Those who have encountered (whether by choice or not) the irresistibly compelling evidence behind the science of evolution, or who have encountered (whether by choice or not) the insurmountable logical and evidential problems with Biblical inerrancy, find it increasingly difficult to go on pronouncing their shibboleths correctly.

I’ve been corresponding on the web with a Christian, a wife and a mother of young children, who just so happens to hold a PhD in science. Put simply, she just knows way too much to go on pronouncing all her shibboleths in the accepted form. Many of the things she knows with clarity are at odds with the beliefs of her church leaders and friends. That she struggles with doubt is not surprising. I know of few evolutionary evangelicals who do not. And many of us who have come to understand that the Bible is not the magical word-perfect book it is hyped to be, deal with doubt, at times heavy and oppressive. This is not the fault of our acceptance of evolution, or good textual study. It is the result of the false dilemmas created by the stark contrasts between the group-think of our evangelical friends, and reality as we have come to see it. Nevertheless, we are evangelical! We seek to follow and obey Jesus. We choose to remain with those believers with whom we identify. We just cannot seem to get our shibboleths to come out right anymore.

So my friend is in the violent throes of painful doubt. At a time when she most needs the support of her faith community, when she needs to be embraced and accepted by her pastors and friends, she is instead “preached at”, she is told that her doubts must be the result of some secret moral failure. She is haunted by the pulpit finger-pointing which identifies doubt as sin. She fears being punished for her doubt. She is told by her Calvinist friends that faith is a gift, and those who doubt incessantly must not have the gift; in which case there is little hope for her. She finds herself increasingly isolated, turned out, because group-thinking Christians are taught to fear, as part of an invading force of evil, those unable to pronounce “shibboleth”. How can my friend, or my other evolutionary friends, be accepted in a community which is currently being assured by that trusted source, Focus on the Family, that evolution is lie from the pit of hell?

My experience is similar to my friend’s. As I take a few steps back from the accepted traditional theology of the evangelical church to which I belong, that very church keeps nudging me to step further away. I am asked to keep my concerns to myself. When I try to warn my friends that the edifice of Christianity is supported by pillars of styrofoam, I am told things would go better for me if I would just keep it to myself. I am told that the personal rejection I endure on so many fronts is my own fault. I come on “too strong”, they tell me. The fact is, I haven’t found any polite way to tell people that the survival of evangelical faith will require the shedding of many cherished shibboleths.

I recently wrote the following words of encouragement to my friend:

Please, do not be deterred by the many Christians whose faith is based upon illusion, and blatantly false suppositions. Who wants that kind of faith, anyway? You seek a faith that can stand up along side volumes of data, data which most believers have never encountered, and from which (sad to say) they are sheltered by their Christian leaders. You didn't ask for the evidence for evolution. You didn't desire an understanding of the historicity issue surrounding the books of the Bible. These are empirical data, brute facts, of which but a small minority of Christians are even remotely aware. You and I are aware ... and this leaves us with the huge challenge, but also the wonderful opportunity, to build a faith that is truly durable, robust, and reality-based. My friend, this challenge is not insurmountable.

Nature's Dark Side

The Ichneumon (ikˈnyu-men) mother wasp carefully searches the leaves for a juicy, well nourished caterpillar. Upon finding just the right fat, food-processing machine, the wasp will with her long ovipositor deep in the flesh of the unsuspecting caterpillar, leave her eggs, and fly away. But just before inserting her eggs, she will carefully locate the critical bundles of nerves inside her womb-host, stinging those nerves in such a way that the caterpillar is paralyzed, but remains alive. In this way, the wasp larvae will have a constant supply of fresh meat to feed on until they are ready to dig their way out of their hollowed-out host. But there is more! Some innate intelligence working in the wasp larvae instructs them to take care to postpone consuming critical caterpillar organs ... they want their meat alive! So, carefully, they consume the internal parts of the caterpillar in reverse order of importance, leaving the heart until the very end!

An imagined scene from some horror movie? Or the cruel hoax of a sadistic story-teller? No, this is one of a myriad of such regular occurrences in nature. And we who believe in a wise and immutably good God must account for a plethora of seemingly diabolical schemes strewn across the landscape of biology. Did our loving Father create these species to interact in this way? Are these the dirty little secrets of Special Creation? or are these horror-filled anomalies the work of an “Intelligent Designer”?

Some Christians choose to ignore this darker side of Creation. They speak freely of the beauty of the natural world, the grandeur of the mountains, the majestic power of the crashing sea, the glory of the soaring eagle, the elegant beauty of the Stargazer Lily. But they avoid the endless stream of agony, suffering and brutality implicit in the natural order: the parasite, the predator and prey, Tennyson’s nature “red in tooth and claw”. The standard Christian response, that these are but manifestations of the curse, the consequence of Adam’s sin, are hackneyed and obsolete. We now have an endless trail of irrefutable fossil evidence: these brutal horrors of nature precede man by hundreds of millions of years. It has been thus from the beginning!

Richard Dawkins, in his new defense of evolutionary science, The Greatest Show on Earth, retells the habits of the Ichneumon wasp in his chapter entitled “Arms Races and ‘Evolutionary Theodicy’” (page 395). I found the chapter absolutely fascinating. Even the renown atheist recognizes how an understanding of the requisites of evolution offer at least a measure of resolution to the age-old theodicy problem.

It has been my contention for sometime that evolution, properly understood as a part of God’s master plan for the cosmos, actually helps the believer find his way through the thorny issues of the problem of evil, and its corollary, the problem of pain. In building my case, it becomes my burden to confront believing friends with aspects of Creation they’d sooner not think about. It is not a popular thing to do. Some friends are enraged at what they perceive me to be: an agitator, a faith-challenging troublemaker. They fail to see my long term goal: to solve problems of faith.

In truth: evolution, the powerfully-supported science which believers often reject, actually helps to solve theodicy, the #1 stumbling-block which believers typically choose to ignore. But before we can proceed down that path, believers must lay down their resistance to undeniable science, and abandon their denial of the dark underbelly of life. When Christians face these two realities, and consider them side-by-side, they will soon be free to explore fresh answers in the full light of reality!

The sooner this day comes, the better!

Evolution: God's Idea?

"Aren't evolution and faith in God incompatible? Can a scientist believe in miracles like the resurrection? Actually, I find no conflict here, and neither apparently do the 40 percent of working scientists who claim to be believers. Yes, evolution by descent from a common ancestor is clearly true. If there was any lingering doubt about the evidence from the fossil record, the study of DNA provides the strongest possible proof of our relatedness to all other living things. But why couldn't this be God's plan for creation?"

~ Dr. Francis Collins

Few Christians I know are even trying to understand how evolution might play into the big picture plan and purpose of God. Many Christians are just straining to get used to the idea of evolution, and many more reject it altogether. When believers get past their initial aversion, get comfortable with the new paradigm, and attempt to look at evolution through the eyes of the purposeful Creator, new and exciting vistas open up on a very large, cosmic scale. Francis Collins, the world’s leading geneticist and an evangelical believer tells us that evolution is clearly true. He accepts it as “God’s plan for creation.”

Where are you on this scale below? Please comment!

o Evolution is not compatible with Christianity.

o Evolution might be true, but I’m not convinced.

o Even if evolution is true, it would not effect Christian theology.

o The evidence for evolution is powerful, and I am trying to adjust my thinking, to understand how it fits into my faith.

o I am comfortable with evolution and common descent.

o I am comfortable with evolution and common descent, and actively exploring how this truth impacts Christian theology.

Our Default Setting? (Part Two)

“The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it!” It’s all many Young Earth Creationists, and other Fundamentalists need to know! They are completely satisfied with the simple statement of faith. I am not.

Michael Spencer keeper of the popular webblog, Internet Monk, recently entered a post on the meaning of “post-evangelical”. In describing his own post-evangelical approach to belief, Michael writes,

“I reject any notions that Christian belief falls from the sky as a magic book that exists apart from other components of human experience.”

I’ll leave it the reader to decide whether or not I qualify as “post-evangelical”, but I do resonate with with Michael on this point. For many believers, the Bible is the starting point and the ending point for their belief in God; I find it necessary to consult those “other components of human experience.”

Thus, when I ask the ultimate questions about whether there is a God, my starting point is the evidence in creation, that place where the Apostle Paul declares that the invisible things of God can be clearly seen (Romans 1:20).

But if anything is clear, it is that not all see those “invisible things of God” with equal clarity. Hence, the question of my previous post about whether we are intrinsically theists or atheists, or whether any such default setting exists. The responses were mixed, as I expected, and made for some fascinating reading for me. Thank you to all who participated.

No one denies that God-consciousness is wide-spread in humankind. But the explanations for religious belief vary.

Commenting on the previous post, Psi suggests that a tendency to see purpose and intention in our world was a survival tool, perhaps necessary in the early development of our species. Thus, religious belief is a product of evolution, though less genetic than memetic. He cites Lewis Wolpert's Six Impossible Things Before Breakfast: The Evolutionary Origins of Belief in which Wolpert traces religious belief, like many such superstitions, to our tendency to assign causation to phenomena.

Isaac points us to the work of British psychologist Bruce Hood who believes that humans are hard-wired for religious belief:

“Humans are born with brains designed to make sense of the world and that sometimes leads to beliefs that go beyond any natural explanation.... We are inclined from the start to think that there are unseen patterns, forces and essences inhabiting the world ...”

This intrinsic human inclination lead to superstitions of all kinds, including (in Hood’s view) belief in God.

Of course, in order to be evolutionarily explained, the human tendency to believe in God must have adaptive value, and those evolutionary scientists who doubt God’s existence have gone to great pains to explain how fanciful notions about gods could have helped our species in its evolutionary struggle. We hear about things like hope and purpose, necessary to drive us forward, even if they were false to the core! “Belief in a supernatural Being served the species well (it must have!)” they tell us, “but of course now we have outgrown its usefulness.”

But when the dust settles around the skeptics’ evolutionary explanations for religious belief, what emerges is this salient observation: religious belief is so universal that it demands an explanation. And of course, the skeptic rejects out of hand any suggestion that this ubiquitous inborn belief in the supernatural might be borne out of supernatural reality.

But the Hebrews had a simpler way of viewing things. The Creator himself, Koheleth instructs us, has “set eternity in the hearts of men”. I cannot say that I’ve never experienced doubt about God. But neither can I deny the reality of Ecclesiates 3:11 in my own experience: eternity is solidly set in my heart, and it is unshakable.

These two competing ideas, 1) the contention of the Bible, that God-consciousness is inborn, irrepressibly written upon the human soul, and 2) the notion that religious belief is merely an adaptive step in our evolutionary history are not mutually exclusive constructs. When we understand evolution as the Creator’s chosen mechanism, it ought not surprise us that an awareness of God would arise developmentally. RBH points us to evolutionary anthropologist Justin L. Barrett, who traces belief in God through its evolutionary stages, finding “adaptive value” in our own evolutionary history along the way. And Oxford researcher Barrett is a professing Christian, one with whom I think I would get on quite well. Together with others, he has helped to establish “the Cognitive Science of Religion” which seeks to study and explain the phenomenon of near ubiquitous religious belief. He writes, “CSR is often associated with evolutionary science and anti-religious rhetoric but neither is intrinsic nor necessary to the field.” Evolution provides little shelter for the atheist in his contention that belief is passé.

Pervasive religious belief remains for me evidence of a default human setting. It appears to me that people widely believe in supernatural causation based upon the witness of nature, and the witness of their own heart and mind. To be sure, many of the forms of this belief, and the early rationales, appear quaint and strange to us today. For me, this is no justification to abandon the implications of God-consciousness. Rather, it compels us to allow our understandings to be refined. Early beliefs were often based upon mysteries in nature (weather, astronomy, etc.) now more fully understood. But the witness of nature today is no less compelling.

And thus the starting point for my personal theology, the launching pad for my exploration of God, is this inner witness, this deep inclination formed by observation of nature and listening to my own heart. I find belief in God to be natural and irrepressible. I experience its renewal every time I step out on my front porch and breath in the fir scented air, and gaze upon the Oregon sky, and the dazzling array of living things that greet me. Yes, eternity is indeed set upon my heart.

A Friendly Discussion about Evolution ...

... which is, of course, most often an oxymoron.

C. Michael Patton recently opened a discussion on evolution at his website with a quote from John MacArthur (see my earlier post John MacArthur: "The evolutionary lie ..."). The last three posts here at OutsideTheBox grew out of that discussion. I quit reading and interacting in the thread of comments when they numbered 530. By that time, the discussion had become heated, at times, with the traditionalist/anti-evolutionists demanding answers to many questions which, quite frankly, underscored how poorly they understand evolution. They kept demanding that evolutionists make every aspect of evolution fit into traditional evangelical theology, reveling in their “aha” moments each time they found our answers less than satisfying.

Fellow Evolutionary-Creationist Greg (who is still going strong as the comment thread nears 600), at one point (comment 509 and 511) became, shall we say, slightly agitated, and waxed eloquent! Because his comment so profoundly reflected my own thoughts and feelings, I asked Greg if I could repost his comment here; he consented, and it follows:

My Father in Heaven has blessed me with an unquenchable desire to know. To seek out and understand, to teach the glories of his Word and world to those less fortunate than I. Ignorance is bliss, maybe, but in the wonderful wisdom of His will, I have been denied this common curse.

I cannot unsee what I have seen. I do not have the luxury of ignorance to guide me in my life anymore. The church is the greatest sustainer of ignorance I have yet to encounter. As I walk through it I am struck by the childishness of the people, the simplicity they exhibit. At times I long to have again what they have now! Only to fit in, to be of a simple mind again, and not walk this road alone. But in the end, that would be like a man who can now see preferring instead his blindness. I prefer the color of the empty road.

The world is an amazing and complicated place. The Word of God is an amazing and complicated book. Both will confuse you to death. Those who do not see burn one in favor of another. That is not an option for me. Who am I to condemn a work of God to the fire? As God is the author of both, I have to hold one in my right hand and one in the other. I have to accept both no matter how confusing it may seem or how much guessing I may have to do. I am sure in my heart that my God is faithful and true, not one prone to duplicity, as those who do not see will have me believe.

The Word and the world are complicated. I embrace the challenge. I will glory in the magnificent creation my Father has put me in and pity those who do not see what wonders my God has created. Any who wish to see I will gladly help them. Those who refuse, I, ever praying, will leave them to their unrealized misery.

If you are an anti-evolutionary Christian, please, please do not take offense. Wear the shoe only if it fits. And ensure that you understand evolution before you criticize those of us who have become convinced that it must fit into revealed truth, because it is revealed truth.

John MacArthur: "The evolutionary lie ..."

An interesting discussion at C. Michael Patton’s website, Reclaiming the Mind has ensued from the following citation. The words are those of John MacArthur from his book, The Battle for the Beginning:

“The evolutionary lie is so pointedly antithetical to Christian truth that it would seem unthinkable for evangelical Christians to compromise with evolutionary science in any degree. But during the past century and a half of evolutionary propaganda, evolutionists have had remarkable success in getting evangelicals to meet them halfway. Remarkably, many modern evangelicals . . . have already been convinced that the Genesis account of creation is not a true historical record. Thus they have not only capitulated to evolutionary doctrine at its starting point, but they have also embraced a view that undermines the authority of Scripture at its starting point.”

Wow! If MacArthur represents a broad swath of evangelicalism, it is no wonder my views on evolution have garnered for me rejection from so many of my friends. On the other hand, I am encouraged that MacArthur has apparently discovered “many” evangelicals who are convinced of evolution. I wish he would introduce us to each other. I find such evangelicals to be quite rare!

Well, Dr. John, count me among those evangelicals who have “been convinced that the Genesis account of creation is not a true historical record” (more on that later ...). But I absolutely repudiate your misguided contention that I have “compromised with evolutionary science” any more than the Christians of an earlier age “compromised” with Copernican cosmology. (But of course, they were also accused of heresy and compromise by the Fundamentalists of their day, and even excommunicated.) When one is confronted with irrefutable evidence for some bit of reality, his acceptance of that reality is hardly a “compromise”. My acceptance of evolutionary science is based firmly upon hard evidence, the likes of which, I’m confident, Christian’s like you have never encountered. Do you wish to win me back to the fold, Dr. John? Then try presenting a bit of evidence that I am mistaken, rather than clobbering me over the head with insinuations that I have “capitulated” to “propaganda”. If you are looking for a perfect example of propaganda (which is unsubstantiated, highly biased misinformation), try reading your own book. The writings of evangelical scientists like Francis Collins, Kenneth Miller, Owen Gingerich, et. al. hardly fall under your “propaganda” category. Have you even read them?

The likely answer is that MacArthur, along with the countless evangelicals who stand with him, have not read such authors. Are they so filled with fear that evolutionary science may prove to be factual, and thus trap them in a new set of baffling dilemmas? Or do they genuinely mistrust science in the first place, and avoid it like the plague?

That would be sad! MacArthur, and some of the commenters to the Parchment and Pen post who defend him, believe that 1) Biblical revelation trumps all other sources of information, and 2) Biblical revelation must be understood literally (unless there is, as they would say, strong internal reasons to understand it allegorically). Thus, their theology is impoverished by their ideology. They reject volumes of natural revelation which science has uncovered in the last few centuries. How valuable is this natural revelation? Paul, in Romans 1:20, makes the case that we can know and understand much about God, including his “invisible qualities” (NIV) without ever cracking open a holy book, but merely by examining the work of his creative hand. Science, good science, is nothing more nor less than the close examination of the handiwork of the Creator! Christians, of all people, should embrace science with heart and mind! and when then do, they will discover that evolution is the most likely framework for the history of life. And they will find, as I have, that our vistas upon the mysteries of theology are expanded, and that Biblical theology is not “undermined”, but greatly enhanced.

And what of MacArthur’s lament that "many modern evangelicals . . . have already been convinced that the Genesis account of creation is not a true historical record." I wish MacArthur were more specific about which "true historical record" in Genesis is important to believe: the one in chapter 1, or the one in chapter 2. Both, of course, cannot be "true historical record[s]" since they give irreconcilably contradictory accounts. But if we read them as allegorical literature (as they were surely intended), the result is that both accounts are “true” in the sense that they convey truths. Far from “undermining the authority of Scripture”, a proper view of the Bible sets us free to understand its profound truths unencumbered by some felt need to defend the indefensible notion that it is literally “true” scientifically and historically. A proper view of the Bible, coupled with a healthy view of scientific discovery, will set us free to explore our Creator in ways earlier believers could never do. What an adventure! It is sad that so many intelligent minds, such as that which John MacArthur possesses, refuse to set out upon this adventure.

So what is your view? Is MacArthur correct? Am I a compromised Christian?

Fusion: Convergence in Biology

In the previous post, I wrote to Nate, “The truths revealed in the cosmos, the fossil record, and our own DNA may at first be jarring to Christian faith. But when we stop resisting these truths, and begin the work of combining them with the revealed truths in the Bible, the exciting journey toward a fuller understanding of truth begins. And I am jazzed about that journey.” I have been on this journey for several years. However, most of my OutsideTheBox posts have concentrated upon the issue of evolution. The question of our evolutionary history is a settled issue for me. To me, the theological implications of evolution are of much greater interest and import. A friend recently encouraged me to post more on the impact evolutionary cosmology and biology have upon Christian theology. This I will do in a new series of posts under the heading of “Fusion”, with an open invitation for readers to join in with comments and questions. Many Christian sites are responding to apparent contradictions between science and faith. My purpose in this Fusion series of posts is to step beyond these problems to ask the question, “If science and the Bible are both revealing truth, what happens when we combine them? What new insights result from the fusion of growing natural revelation and special revelation?”

In a recent online discussion, a Creationist explained to me the problem he has with evolutionary science: "So God did not create man in his own image? ...in a old universe with macro-evolution ... we are not special .."

In his view, anything other than the special creation of mankind would mean that we are nothing more than an evolutionary accident. And so, along with many other Christians, he opts for a Creation that is precisely engineered and micromanaged by its Creator. 

However, there are serious problems with a micromanaging God, not the least of which is vulnerability to the challenge of Epicurus (see my recent post on Epicurus and the Problem of Evil). Is there a way out of this dilemma? Is it possible that God could create a universe that evolves on its own, without his constant interventions, and still have a predictable outcome: Man, created in his own image? The answer may be found in the principle of Evolutionary Convergence.

First, a little background: Convergence, is defined by Wikepedia as “the approach toward a definite value, as time goes on.” The term has various technical and mathematical applications, and is used in many social sciences. Of interest to our discussion is the principle of convergence as it is used in evolutionary science. 

Convergent evolution is based upon several observed phenomena. Here are a few fascinating examples:

1) Wings, with similar aerodynamic construction, have developed independently in birds and in bats, suggesting that the wing itself is a predictable outcome, a natural adaptation waiting to be “found” by natural selection.

2) Camera-like eyes, with similar characteristics, but with significant design differences, have developed independently in mammals and cephalopods (squids and octopuses, e.g.). Interestingly, the eye of the cephalopod is of superior design. Instead of the internal wiring from the retina which results in the blind spot in our eyes, the cephalopod’s eye has external wiring, eliminating the blind spot. Still, the eye is another example of an advantageous adaptation waiting to happen!

3) Adaptive Spaces: perhaps the most compelling example of convergence in evolution is the remarkable correspondence in the fauna that developed in Australia and that which developed in the rest of the world. That is, the array of marsupial animals in Australia bear many similarities to the array of placental mammals elsewhere. It is clear that the geographical separation of these two animal groups happened very early in the evolutionary tree. And yet, within the two groups, many of the same types of animals emerged over time, suggesting that certain “adaptive spaces” or “ecological niches” were waiting to be filled, and that the random processes of natural selection were predestined to find them.

In fairness, this principle of convergence is still a matter of debate among evolutionary scientists. American evolutionary biologist Steven J. Gould famously defended the principle of contingency: he claimed that if we could turn back the clock to the beginning of evolution and start the process over, an entirely different set of living things would emerge, that every new random development is “contingent” upon those that preceded it. British paleontologist Simon Conway Morris leads the charge for the other side, making the case for convergence. He claims that our observations of phenomena suggest that if we turned back that clock and started evolution all over, a very similar set of living things would emerge. The random processes might vary, details could be different, but the ultimate outcomes might be substantially the same. The result of the process would be a set of organisms bearing remarkable similarity to that which we observe today.

I have been reading a fascinating anthology on convergence, edited by Conway Morris (and recommended to me by Isaac, a frequent OutsideTheBox commenter) which outlines the current state of convergent evolutionary science. This science suggests that the process of evolution quite naturally will find itself moving toward certain predictable outcomes, including sentience (perception, subjectivity) and intelligence.

Back to our Creationist’s objection to evolution. How does convergence impact his claim that in evolution, man is not special, that we are mere accidents, and certainly not the intended image bearers of the divine which the Bible declares us to be? Convergence suggests to me that God could create man “in his image” through unguided random natural processes; that without knowing, or needing to control, every detail of the process, the outcomes were from the very beginning quite predictable; that God used a remarkable plan to forge mankind by creating an awesome DNA language, stepping back, and watching his spectacular handiwork unfold. It suggests that it was not necessary for God to micro-manage the creative process we call evolution, or step in from time to time to tweak it, or add certain design elements into the mix. 

Since I started my quest for a deeper understanding of God and his ways, I have been looking for that principle that could wed the seemingly contradictory ideas of randomness and design. Such a principle would profoundly effect theology. The answer may lie in evolutionary convergence.

In future posts, I will seek to understand how a non-interventionist God effects theodicy (the problem of evil), and why God might have chosen such a non-interventionist approach in the first place.

Comments?

Disillusionment

When Young Earth Creationist Christians discover the overwhelming evidence for evolution, it can result in a crisis of faith. This sad reality is not the fault of good science. It is the fault of an illusion of reality fostered by YEC teaching. 

Merrium-Webster defines Disillusion as "to free from illusion; also, to cause to lose naive faith and trust." Such disillusionment is the experience of many believers as they come to accept evolution. YEC teachers emphatically claim their teaching to be absolutely essential and foundational to Christianity; thus it is not surprising that stepping away from it can feel so perilous. 

 

Earlier this week, a former Young Earth Creationist (whom I've never met) sent an email briefly describing his faith struggle. Because I thought other readers may deal with similar issues, I asked for and he granted permission for me to post our email exchange, which follows:

Hi Cliff, 

I was young earth creationist and I had couple questions about how you deal with certain issues. If nature can prove everything, morality, existence, and things like religion are we just being delusional believing in God?  We could just be lucky SOB's.  I hope not because frankly belief in God is the only thing keeping me from nihilism.  I want desperately to believe in God, but if nature doesn't point to God then I'm having a hard time believing.

  

Anyway, thanks for your time

Nate

Nate,

I am with you ... without God in my reality, nihilism is the only alternative. But God is very much at the center of my worldview. My view of reality would take way too much time and space for an email response. But I'll try to give you a taste. You can find fuller explanations in the various articles on my blog. 

I do believe that nature can explain most of our reality. I believe that God is generally non-interventionist, because his purposes are being fulfilled as nature plays out its course. His intervention in the affairs of men are in response to people of faith, who invite it. That is the essence of the prayer Jesus taught us in the Sermon on the Mount. 

While I agree that there are evidences that altruism and some morality have developed through evolution, Dawkins is far too overreaching in his optimism that evolution will explain all. You mentioned nature explaining existence. In my view, it does not. I see no way that evolution will ever answer the ultimate question of why anything exists at all. "Why is there something instead of nothing?" is a question that for me only has one answer: a Creator God! 

On my blog you can find a post entitled "Reasons for My Belief (full essay)" (Scroll down to "OTHER POSTS OF INTEREST" and you will find the link about midway in the list.) I offer five of the most compelling reasons for my faith in God. Perhaps you will find them helpful.

Nate, I must tell you that since I accepted the findings of science in regard to cosmic and biological evolution, I have found many answers to difficult questions about God and reality. The truths revealed in the cosmos, the fossil record, and our own DNA may at first be jarring to Christian faith. But when we stop resisting these truths, and begin the work of combining them with the revealed truths in the Bible, the exciting journey toward a fuller understanding of truth begins. And I am jazzed about that journey. Life and reality have never made more sense to me than they do now! I encourage you to keep asking questions, keep searching for truth, and do not abandon you belief in God! You will be rewarded!

Stay in touch!

Cliff 

Cliff,

Thanks for your time. I will read your more of your stuff.  I just needed some encouragement to keep going in my faith. 

thanks

Nate