Posted on 06/20/2006 7:00:43 AM PDT by Al Simmons
Creation and Evolution
by Mike Taylor
http://www.miketaylor.org.uk/xian/index.html
10th February 2003
1. Introduction
I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use. — Galileo Galilei
The overarching principle of this talk is that God has created us as rational beings, with the capacity for abstract, logical thought. That can surely only be because he intends us to use it: the parable of the talents (Matthew 25:14-30) shows that we have an obligation to use the abilities that God has given us. That certainly doesn't mean that we ignore the bible - but it does mean that, for those parts of the bible that are susceptible to more than one interpretation, we use our minds to establish which we think is correct.
Many of the 19th century scientists understood this: they were mostly ``gentleman-philosophers'' whose goal was to understand the creator better, though science - that is, the study of his creation. For those who approach science today in the same spirit, the pay-off is the same. An understanding of cosmology and the ludicrously huge masses and distances involved can hardly help but inspire worship.
2. The Conflict
The best and most objective science available to us today estimates that the Earth is about six thousand million years old, and the universe as a whole about fifteen thousand million years old. The fossil record, though patchy and incomplete, clearly shows that evolution has taken place through many millions of years, giving rise, among other creatures, to the dinosaurs, which lived from 220 to 65 Mya (millions of years ago).
In contrast, the most literal possible reading of our English translation of Genesis (referring to the first day, the second day, etc.) suggests that the Earth and the universe that contains it were created in six days - 144 hours.
That literal interpretation was perhaps the most obvious one in the centuries before the rise of science. But even in the absence of scientific evidence to the contrary, there are reasons why ``six day'' creation is maybe not a compelling theory:
• There was no Sun until the 4th ``day'' of creation, so what can the word ``day'' have meant for the first three days? Clearly not ``the time taken for the Earth to revolve on its axis with respect to the Sun''! So you can argue that there is no literal interpretation!
• Why did it take God six days to create the universe? Why didn't he do it instantaneously? He is certainly powerful enough to have done so, and the New Testament tells us the end will come ``in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye'' (1 Corinthians 15:52)
• The Hebrew word translated ``day'' in the first chapter of Genesis is the same word used for an arbitrary period of time - just as, in the New Testament, the Greek word translated ``son'' is also used to mean ``descendent'', so that Jesus is called ``son of David''.
I contend that, in the light of these issues, and in the light of what God has allowed us to discover about his universe through science, the literal-minded interpretation must be incorrect. While we emphatically agree that the bible is infallible, we must not elevate our fallible interpretation of it to infallibility.
3. History of the Conflict
Why, then, are so many Christians so dedicated to a belief in a 144-hour creation? I suspect it's largely a matter of habit: that belief is inherited from parents (and older Christians) who do not have a scientific background, and passed on uncritically.
The danger with this is that somewhere down the line, the issue has acquired a degree of importance and centrality that it just doesn't merit. Some Christians are worried that if they don't stick to the 144-hour story, they are somehow taking away from God's glory. But I find the story of a fifteen-billion year creation yet more glorious: the idea of God piloting suns and galaxies in their courses to bring the Universe to the point he intended is an awesome one.
The situation is in some ways analogous to that of the Earth's centrality in the Universe. In ancient times, it was taken for granted that this was how the Universe was laid out, because there was no obvious evidence that it might be otherwise. This belief somehow became associated with Christianity, at least in the minds of the leaders of the established church - perhaps guided by an overly literal-minded interpretation of bible passages such as Psalm 104:19-22 (``The sun knows when to go down. You bring darkness, it becomes night, and all the beasts of the forest prowl [...] The sun rises, and they steal away.'')
When astonomers such as Copernicus first postulated that the Earth and the other planets orbited the Sun, they were opposed by the Church because it was felt that this strange new belief was unbiblical. But no Christian today believes that the Earth is the physical centre of the Universe, nor feels that Christianity is compromised by its orbiting the Sun.
4. Science and Faith
I have made the earth, and created man upon it: I, even my hands, have stretched out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded. — Isaiah 45:12, quoted on the home page of the Institute for Creation Research
YES! I agree emphatically with the ICR that God made the Earth and created man upon it. But this verse is about who made the earth, not how he did it. It simply is not about science.
Fundamentally, science is about ``how'' questions. It doesn't even attempt to address ``why'' questions - it doesn't have the tools to ask them, let alone answer them. That's not a criticism of science: it's merely that that's not what science is, in much the same way that meringue is not a building material. No-one would criticise meringue for that, because we understand that its purpose is different
. • Why is the universe the way it is? Because God caused it to be so. (That's theology)
• How did it get this way? Through cosmological, geological and evolutionary processes. (That's science.)
That's why this session is entitled ``Creation and Evolution'' - not ``Creation versus Evolution''!
The book of Ecclesiastes in the bible contains some thoughts on commerce, but it is not an economics textbook. The book of Acts includes accounts of journeys across the Middle East and Europe, but it is not a geography textbook. In the same way, Genesis is not a science textbook. It simply does not set out to address scientific ``how'' questions such as how the different species arose. It's there to answer ``why'' questions. Why is there a Universe at all? (Because God willed it so.) Why are humans moral while animals are not? (Because God made us ``in his image''). Why does a good God allow suffering to exist? (Because of sin.)
The early chapters of Genesis simply don't read like a documentary account. The style of the prose is very different from, for example, that of the gospels, which can't be read in any other interpretation than that of history. Instead, the early part of Genesis reads more like a summary - a ``story so far'' - an ``in last week's episode''.
So I would argue that there is simply no conflict between science and faith, because they address completely different areas. Science has very little light to shed on faith issues, just as it has little to say about, for example, poetry or love. Again, this is a criticism neither of science nor of faith (not, for that matter, or poetry or love!) Just a recognition that they are different things that address different parts of our humanity.
5. Science's Attitude to Christianity
The well-known palaeontologist Robert Bakker, in an interview with Prehistoric Planet makes two important points. The first is to do with one eminent Christian's attitude to science:
St. Augustine [...] came up with the conclusion that the story in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 was not a simple historical sequence of events. It just couldn't be. It's not what the words meant. It just wasn't. — Robert Bakker
And the second, conversely, is to do with the correct attitude of science towards Christianity:
Scientists nearly all the time [...] have the assumption that all religion is silly superstition. That all religious belief is stuff you've got to cure yourself of, get rid of, if you're going to be a good scientist. Noooooooo. — Robert Bakker
Evolutionary scientists are not out to get you! There are plenty of Christians on the Dinosaur Mailing List, and with a very few exceptions everyone is helpful and friendly. The disapproval and contempt of scientists is for the most part reserved for those who ignore or manipulate scientific evidence to reach a pre-selected conclusion - not for those, like most Christians, who simply do not do science at all.
Some Christians will argue that Evolutionism leads to a godless world-view. But ``An idea is not responsible for the people who believe in it'' (Don Marquis.) Which, by the way, I've seen used by Christians to disclaim responsibility for the inquisition. As C. S. Lewis observes, we believe in a thing not because it is modern, or helpful, or leads to desirable ends, but because it is true.
6. Beware Creationism
Don't have anything to do with foolish and stupid arguments, because you know they produce quarrels. And the Lord's servant must not quarrel. — 2 Timothy 2:24
Avoid foolish controversies [...] and arguments and quarrels about the law, because these are unprofitable and useless. — Titus 3:9
Finally, it is my painful duty to warn Christians against creationism - that is, the attempt to build a ``scientific'' justification for belief in a six-day creation that happened about six thousand years ago and in which evolution does not happen. Devotees of creationism make strong claims for its validity, but it is overwhelmingly rejected by professionals in the field. This rejection is most reasonably interpreted as a reflection of the ineptness of well-meaning but incompetent amateurs. Realistically, this is a much more likely explanation than creationists' favourite interpretation that there is a huge anti-creationism consipiracy in mainstream science.
Writing as both a Christian and a scientist (amateur), what disturbs me most is that the dishonesty or incompetence of some creation scientists can only be dishonouring to God. Take for example the implication in Dr Duane T. Gish's Dinosaurs by Design that evolution requires birds to be derived ornithischians (because ``ornithischian'' means ``bird-hipped'' whereas ``saurischian'' means ``lizard-hipped''). Anyone who knows anything about dinosaur-bird evolution knows that orthodox science has birds evolving from saurischian dinosaurs, and that the superficial resemblance between hip structure in birds and ornithischian dinosaurs is just that - superficial (and, for what it's worth, not particularly striking anyway).
So why does Gish's book imply that evolution says birds evolved from ornithischians? We're left with only two possible reasons, and neither is very palatable:
1. The author did not know even the basics of dinosaur science, and did not trouble himself to do even a bare minimum of research before writing his book on the subject.
2. He knew exactly what he was doing, and deliberately painted a false and nonsensical parody of the true evolutionist position because a straw horse is easier to knock over.
Which of these two alternatives do we find less unappetising? That the author is incompetent, or that he is dishonest? I don't feel comfortable criticising fellow Christians like this, but I simply can't find a third explanation.
Christians need to realise that conflicts like this do not draw scientists towards the gospel. Quite the opposite: most scientists, on reading a transparently flawed argument like Gish's will see more evidence to back his erroneous belief that Christianity is fundamentally incompatible with thinking straight, and will become more hostile to the gospel.
At best, Creationism is the wrong battle to fight. Far better to spend your time arguing the historicity of the gospels or the reality of God's work today.
The link above will bring you to Mike's website where you can also sample some of his sermons.
As an aside, Dr. Robert Bakker, one of the most prominent paleontologists in the world (and largely responsible for advancing the now-well-accepted hypothesis that dinosaurs were warm-blooded like mammals), who is quoted in Mike's notes above, is a Christian (though obviously not of a 'new-earth creationist' variety.) He was brought up in a conservative baptist household, if memory serves. Bakker is best known for his scraggly beard, trademark cowboy hat and perpetual smile. Just FYI.
What is Evolution?
Copyright © 1993-1997 by Laurence Moran
Most non-scientists seem to be quite confused about precise definitions of biological evolution. Such confusion is due in large part to the inability of scientists to communicate effectively to the general public and also to confusion among scientists themselves about how to define such an important term.
When discussing evolution it is important to distinguish between the existence of evolution and various theories about the mechanism of evolution. And when referring to the existence of evolution it is important to have a clear definition in mind. What exactly do biologists mean when they say that they have observed evolution or that humans and chimps have evolved from a common ancestor?
One of the most respected evolutionary biologists has defined biological evolution as follows:
"In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve. Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions."
- Douglas J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates 1986
It is important to note that biological evolution refers to populations and not to individuals and that the changes must be passed on to the next generation. In practice this means that,
Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations.
This is a good working scientific definition of evolution; one that can be used to distinguish between evolution and similar changes that are not evolution. Another common short definition of evolution can be found in many textbooks:
"In fact, evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next."
- Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology, 5th ed. 1989 Worth Publishers, p.974
One can quibble about the accuracy of such a definition (and we have often quibbled on these newsgroups) but it also conveys the essence of what evolution really is. When biologists say that they have observed evolution, they mean that they have detected a change in the frequency of genes in a population. (Often the genetic change is inferred from phenotypic changes that are heritable.) When biologists say that humans and chimps have evolved from a common ancestor they mean that there have been successive heritable changes in the two separated populations since they became isolated.
Unfortunately the common definitions of evolution outside of the scientific community are different. For example, in the Oxford Concise Science Dictionary we find the following definition:
"evolution: The gradual process by which the present diversity of plant and animal life arose from the earliest and most primitive organisms, which is believed to have been continuing for the past 3000 million years."
This is inexcusable for a dictionary of science. Not only does this definition exclude prokaryotes, protozoa, and fungi, but it specifically includes a term "gradual process" which should not be part of the definition. More importantly the definition seems to refer more to the history of evolution than to evolution itself. Using this definition it is possible to debate whether evolution is still occurring, but the definition provides no easy way of distinguishing evolution from other processes. For example, is the increase in height among Caucasians over the past several hundred years an example of evolution? Are the color changes in the peppered moth population examples of evolution? This is not a scientific definition.
Standard dictionaries are even worse.
"evolution: ...the doctrine according to which higher forms of life have gradually arisen out of lower.." - Chambers
"evolution: ...the development of a species, organism, or organ from its original or primitive state to its present or specialized state; phylogeny or ontogeny" - Webster's
These definitions are simply wrong. Unfortunately it is common for non-scientists to enter into a discussion about evolution with such a definition in mind. This often leads to fruitless debate since the experts are thinking about evolution from a different perspective. When someone claims that they don't believe in evolution they cannot be referring to an acceptable scientific definition of evolution because that would be denying something which is easy to demonstrate. It would be like saying that they don't believe in gravity!
Recently I read a statement from a creationist who claimed that scientists are being dishonest when they talk about evolution. This person believed that evolution was being misrepresented to the public. The real problem is that the public, and creationists, do not understand what evolution is all about. This person's definition of evolution was very different from the common scientific definition and as a consequence he was unable to understand what evolutionary biology really meant. This is the same person who claimed that one could not "believe" in evolution and still be religious! But once we realize that evolution is simply "a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations" it seems a little silly to pretend that this excludes religion!
Scientists such as myself must share the blame for the lack of public understanding of science. We need to work harder to convey the correct information. Sometimes we don't succeed very well but that does not mean that we are dishonest. On the other hand, the general public, and creationists in particular, need to also work a little harder in order to understand science. Reading a textbook would help. ~ bttt
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html
Thank you for posting this. My wife is a scientist and a Christian and it seemed like I was reading her words as I went over this.
Now this I can sort of buy. I don't see this as doubting the divinity of God in the least. Now do I still hold man in a different category (being that man did not evolve but was placed here by God)? I think I do and always will. But as for the rest, I don't see this hurting the Christian belief in anyway. Bumping you to this RA as I know we've had discussions on it.
First, the Hebrew word "yowm" is used in each case of the word 'day' in the following verses.
Exd 20:8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
Exd 20:9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
Exd 20:10 But the seventh day [is] the sabbath of the LORD thy God: [in it] thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that [is] within thy gates:
Exd 20:11 For [in] six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them [is], and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
Second, Darwiniam evolution and creation are totaly and completely incompatible. Note the phrase "after his kind".
Each living thing was created after "his kind", not all the same kind.
Gen 1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, [and] the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed [is] in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
Gen 1:12 And the earth brought forth grass, [and] herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed [was] in itself, after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good.
Gen 1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl [that] may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
Gen 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good.
Gen 1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
Gen 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good.
Gen 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
Gen 1:27 So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
Thirdly, mathematically evolution is beyond belief.
When discussing evolution it is important to distinguish between the existence of evolution and various theories about the mechanism of evolution.
This is the key. The problem arises over one's understanding of the mechanism of evolution and whether the process is entirely random. Those who do not insist on a completely random process, have no problem reconciling the TOE with belief in God. Some insist that the term "evolution", by definition, requires the process to be random. That is where the tension lies among those who accept that the earth is much older and 6 - 10 thousand years.
You're welcome. Until people are all working from the same definition when they discuss the subject, confusion and misunderstandings will continue to cloud the issue.
Each person seems to have his own idea of what the word "evolution" means. Until that changes, it is a waste of time attempting to discuss the subject in any sort of rational manner.
Is it your view that one cannot be a Christian if one accepts the theory of evolution as the best current explanation for biological development and diversification?
Well, there should be no problem then.
Scientists don't think evolution is random. Never did.
And for the umpteenth time, what were the physical characteristics of the "tree of the knowledge of good and evil" and "the tree of life"; what became of these "trees" (or, where are these "trees" today); and on what basis do you contend that these "trees" should not be viewed as the patently obvious metaphors that they are?
"Is it your view that one cannot be a Christian if one accepts the theory of evolution as the best current explanation for biological development and diversification?"
No, that is not my view. I believe ignorance is an excuse - up to a point. My comments are regarding this particular author.
Thanks for the Post.
Creation and Evolution Ping. Please feel free to ping anyone I might have missed - on BOTH sides of this topic. I think you might find this article to be of interest...
Dr. Bakker lectured at my college 15 years ago. He was excellent. We were honored to have him and his presentation was superb.
I particularly liked how he interacted with the kids in the audience. He really stirred their imaginations and fascinated them with dinosaur facts.
He also spoke kindly about his mother, who he said was a creation scientist.
Now do I still hold man in a different category (being that man did not evolve but was placed here by God)?
Is man (the flesh part) or is the soul divine? Could not the flesh evolve along with everything else, but God instill the soul when the proper time came?
BTW, I am not saying that's what happened, just speculating on your premise.
Seems like just yesterday I was told on this forum that the earth was 4.5 thousand million years old.
My how time flies.
bump
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.