Evolution: Fact or Fiction?

Jim Berge

“Subtle is the Lord, but malicious He is not.” Albert Einstein

I am a bible-believing Christian. I believe that Jesus Christ died to save sinners, and that His free gift of grace provides fallen humanity the way to conquer death in sin and separation from God. I believe that Jesus Christ created the universe and everything in it, that he sustains the universe, and that He created mankind in his image from the dust of the earth. And I believe that there exists a possibility that the theory of biological evolution has some merit. Let me explain.
     A human being begins life as a single cell (no, this isn't the old ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny thing). During the nine months following fertilization, this single cell develops very gradually into a recognizable baby, passing through advancing stages which become more and more like the human form. Almost every Christian I know objects vehemently to the scientific theory of evolution on the basis that advanced organisms simply do not come from simple organisms, yet no Christian I know of objects to this gradual evolution of a single cell into a human baby. We would never expect a two week old fetus to develop on its own outside the womb. Why is it so difficult for us to consider that the universe also may have been nourished and developed like a baby in the womb?
     The theory of evolution as presented by modern science certainly ought to be resisted by those who seek the truth, but not necessarily because of the alleged mechanism of evolution. The problem with modern secular evolutionary belief is that the process is believed to be completely natural, in the sense that it required no guidance by God. Natural selection and random mutations are deemed adequate to create the various forms of life we see on earth today from nothing but primordial soup. Once again, on this basis, secular evolutionary thought should be resisted, but should the mechanism of evolution - that is, gradual change rather than special creation for all of Gods creatures - be subject to the conventional knee-jerk reaction common in evangelicalism? Could God have used gradual processes to begin the process of life on earth? Does any biblical evidence exist to prohibit God from using gradual processes? Must creation have happened in a literal six-day period, during which God created all the specific species and varieties of life?
     This article is not intended to change your mind about evolution or about God's role in the creation process. My goal is to present our readers with an understanding of evidences which exist that have caused me to rethink exactly what it is I believe about the creation/evolution of the universe, and why I believe the way I do. Hopefully, the end result will be a stronger faith and more information on which to base our beliefs. As Christians we are called to question all things - to be continuous skeptics:

“Test everything. Hold on to the good.” (1 Thes. 5:21)

A reminder that when we are told to “test everything”, this must also include the possibility of man's possibly inaccurate interpretations of Scripture.

Introduction

A number of isolated incidences have conspired to cause my reflection on the validity of evolutionary theory. Although my thought processes on this topic are just beginning to develop (I will be trying to develop a more complete synthesis of these ideas in the future and will report my results as they come in), they have been influenced by these assumptions:
     The young earth creationists who insist that the entire universe must be less than ten thousand years old cannot be correct. Modern cosmology provides too much concrete evidence against such an interpretation. If the universe and the earth are indeed old, then adequate time has passed for God to develop certain forms of life gradually.
     Dr. John Sailhamer, author of Genesis Unbound, provides a literal interpretation of Genesis which describes the creation account in Chapters 1 and 2 as applying to the preparation of the Garden for inhabitation by Adam and Eve. Genesis 1:1 therefore includes the initial creation of all things, and could provide for an ancient universe. This interpretation possibly provides a history in which the dinosaurs, the ancient patterns preserved in the rock strata and the fossil record result from events which took place between Genesis 1:1 (In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth) and 1:2 (And the earth was without form and void). Yes, this is the standard “Gap Theory,” but nothing I read in Scripture prohibits a gap between the first two verses in the bible. For instance, when the Apostle Paul traveled from town to town during his journeys, we are not always told how long it took. There is no gap of time specifically mentioned, but we must assume that it took a finite amount of time for him to travel. We are forced to insert gaps of time to allow Paul to reach his destinations. This is no different than inserting a gap between the first two verses of Genesis, if indeed we have reason to do so. I believe we do.
     The body of evidence used to support evolution may not necessarily be in conflict with the Genesis creation account if indeed the initial creation of the ancient earth and the subsequent creation in Genesis were separate events.
     Many respected and knowledgeable secular scientists who do not actively object to the Christian world view espouse the theory of evolution as the best explanation for the origin of life on earth, yet certain aspects of evolutionary theory cannot be explained by them. Maybe they're partially correct?
     Many respected Christian scientists believe in an ancient universe, some also believing in the God-controlled evolution of life on earth. A common view similar to this is called theistic evolution.
     My primary goal is not to shock or confuse, but to simply present other arguments which require an answer. All I ask is that you read these arguments (which, I will remind readers, are “under construction” at this time) and consider their validity.
     I want to begin by discussing the points I have outlined above, so readers may understand the assumptions which have helped to form the question in my mind of the validity (or non-validity) of evolutionary theory. In the process, we will also, by the end of this article, have a good grasp on a lot of related topics.

Young Earth or Old?

An ancient universe is necessary to explain certain features of the physical earth we inhabit, the cosmos surrounding our planet, and other phenomena which require a very long length of time. First, we must determine exactly why young earth creationism cannot be true in light of observed evidence from the universe which surrounds us.
I would never deny that vehicles colliding into each other at highway speeds would cause some physical damage, both to the vehicles and their passengers. Why? Have I ever partaken in such activities? No, thankfully I havent. But my knowledge of the possible consequences comes from my observation of the world around me. My wife and I witnessed first-hand the aftermath of a severe crash on an Ohio interstate in which, a few cars ahead of us, a tractor-trailer plowed into a line of cars which had been stopped for road construction. The final result included skid marks 200 feet long and about a dozen smashed cars. As the flames from the burning truck and one of the cars, trapped underneath, sent plumes of pitch-black smoke into the humid summer air, my knowledge of and respect for Newtons laws of physics were greatly strengthened. Viewing similar events on the evening news has given me enough evidence of the consequences of collisions to convince me that, yes, collisions happen and they are no fun, in spite of the fact I have never personally experienced such a thing.
This is the same type of firm evidence which exists to portray our universe, which many scientists believe is in continual expansion from an initial point, the result of an unfathomably huge explosion. Obviously, none of us were around to witness the birth of the universe, regardless of the method God used to create it. However, scientists have several compelling evidences which seem to confirm a common starting point for all matter in the universe, a rapidly expanding universe, and a methodology by which matter may have - after the Big Bang - coalesced into the galaxies, stars and background radiation which we observe today.

The Terms of Debate

Now, certain strongholds in the evangelical world seem to have their own opinion of the origins of the universe, no matter what modern science has to say about the issue. By demanding six literal creation days in Genesis, they limit the age of the universe (according to their own narrow interpretation of Scripture) to about 10,000 years, defying modern scientific evidences to the contrary. By demanding scriptural literalism, they have shut out all arguments against their viewpoint before even considering them. Philip Johnson, in Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds, correctly describes the most effective weapon that modern humanistic science uses against supernatural creation: they reject anything which hints of supernaturalism based on the assumption that it is “outside science.” Johnson argues that to define religion as “outside science” is simply arbitrary, with no basis other than the bias humanistic scientists have toward religion. It is a convenient way to eliminate supernaturalism from the debate before the debate even begins, by arbitrarily defining the conditions of the debate. In the same way, creationists seem unwilling to even consider anything that suggests an ancient universe, because they (arbitrarily?) feel that scripture requires a young universe. They eliminate the possibility of an ancient universe at the outset by not even allowing such arguments into the debate, declaring them as unscriptural.
Mark Noll, in The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind, describes the danger of such inflexibility:

By their all-or-nothing attitudes, creationists make it harder, rather than easier, to isolate the critical issues at the intersection of religion and science. The roar of battle between “creationists” and their “scientific” opponents drowns out more patient, more careful voices (p. 196).

I have heard this roar, even between Christians who fall on opposite sides of the young earth - old earth controversy. In a transcript of a Focus on the Family radio debate between Duane Gish (from Institute for Creation Research) and Hugh Ross (a Christian astrophysicist who believes in an ancient universe), Gish comes across as defensive and verbose, never satisfactorily addressing Ross's arguments, but rather attacking Ross and his views, repeatedly using the argument that Ross believes in the same ancient universe as many atheistic scientists, and therefore ought to be discredited. I liken this argument with that of me, a Christian, agreeing with my atheist neighbor that the weather is nice today. The fact that I agree with him does not necessitate my adopting his atheistic viewpoints; we merely agree on a fact concerning the weather. In the same way, Ross agrees with atheistic cosmologists only insofar as they both see the physical evidence for an ancient universe; one believes that God created all of it, the other believes that it all happened by chance. This transcript is available from the Talk Origins archive web site at The Talk.Origins Archive and is highly recommended as an excellent glimpse into the methods of scientific reasoning common among creationists.

God's Two Revelations

Creationists must realize that God's creation is as valid a revelation about himself as the bible. We must be careful not to look too deeply into the bible for information God never put there. The purposes of scripture are manyfold, but primarily “for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work” (2 Timothy 3:16-17). The Holy Bible is the revelation of Jesus Christ and his plan of redemption for humankind. But we are mistaken to believe that God intended the bible to be a textbook for quantum mechanics, gravitation, statistics, mathematics, biology, cosmology and physics. The bible is necessarily silent on things scientific specifically because God gave us brains. He expects us to think and reason, and to explore the fabulous universe he created for us, as Galileo, quoted by Noll, explained so lucidly:

I do not think one has to believe that the same God who has given us senses, language and intellect would want to set aside the use of these and give us by other means the information we can acquire with them, so that we would deny our senses and reason even in the case of those physical conclusions which are placed before our eyes and intellect by our sensory experiences... (pp. 205-206).

God gave us the type of analytical brain - unique in the animal kingdom - with which we may discover deep truths about the methods he used to bring matter into being. Equally important are God's two revelations, the creation and the Word, the written and the visible, the physical and the metaphysical. Noll further quotes Galileo discussing the very issue of God's two revelations:

The Holy Scripture and nature derive equally from the godhead, the former as the dictation of the Holy Spirit and the latter as the most obedient executrix of God's orders...God reveals himself to us no less excellently in the effects of nature than in the sacred words of Scripture (p. 205).

As in Galileo's day, modern evangelicalism is entrapped in a legalistic mindset which prohibits them from seeing the truth about the world around us. Yes, even dogmatism concerning the interpretation of scripture can become legalism. Roy Hershberger, in A Religion of Irrelevance, reveals an error into which many Christians stumble when insisting upon literal interpretations of the bible at all cost, and the danger of using the bible for purposes God may not have intended:

The Bible is what we gauge all truth by, but it is not the only source of truth. We should be free to utilize every avenue and method God has given us to creatively uphold truth. Perhaps we have put the Bible on a pedestal God never intended.

These other avenues and methods Hershberger alludes to can include scientific study of our world and the cosmos.
Mark Noll describes the danger of using the bible as the final authority on scientific truth:

Creation science does not merely contradict contemporary cosmologists who use science in defense of agnosticism, nor does it merely provide a way of preserving traditional harmonies between Scripture and science. Rather, it is persuasive for so many evangelicals because it seems to honor the Scriptures...by trying to see first what the Bible says and then using those conclusions to shape our investigation of what we are concerned about. The problem with this reasoning is not confidence in the Bible, but confidence in ourselves (pp. 200-201).

Therefore, we have an obligation to use Gods two bibles, or two revelations, side by side, equally weighted, to get a full of picture of who God is, what Hes done and why Hes done it. “For since the creation of the world Gods invisible qualities - his eternal power and divine nature - have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse” (Romans 1:20). Men are without excuse because, even without the written bible, Gods created revelation is enough to convince men of His existence and His role in the universe and in life. By insisting that only one of these equally important bibles (the biblical manuscripts) is the only valid method of receiving revelation from God about the world (or universe) which we occupy, young-earth creationists paint themselves into a corner, with no hope of discovering important truths about Gods magnificent creation. By insisting on only one revelation from God, the bible, then they must also discount prophecies, words of knowledge and other gifts of information from God. Thankfully, the scientific world possesses a phenomenal quantity of data about God's First Revelation.
To insist on equal footing for both of God's bibles (the written one and the created universe) is a wholly biblical notion. The Romans passage above states that even without the written revelation of Christ, those who observe the world around them have enough evidence of an omnipotent Creator. There are certainly many isolated people groups on this earth, if not now then certainly in the past when mass media and modern transportation were not available, that never had the opportunity during their lifetimes to read a single word of scripture. Yet God says they have the same chance for salvation as any one of us has today, just by the evidence of what God has created. He has put something of Himself into His creation, and it is plainly obvious to anyone who will take the time to ponder the subject.
How does this affect our discussion? Since God took such care in creating a universe which cries out in praise to Him, He fully expects us to not merely look at it, but to study it and to revel in its majesty and complexity, since in doing so, we revel in His imagination, His creativity, His infinite knowledge and His beauty. He expects us to look at the way things appear now and, using the minds which He gave us - which, incidentally, are fashioned after the mind of Christ - to discover as much as possible about what He has provided expressly for us. As we learn more about His universe and are awestruck by it, we reap the same advantages (for instance, spiritual growth, better understanding of His character, greater love for him) that we gain from studying His other revelation (the Bible).

Does God Deceive?

Young earth creationists insist that the cosmos were created a few thousand years ago. How can this be? Fred Heeren, in Show Me God: What the Message from Space Is Telling Us About God, tells the true story of an astronomer who saw a star exploding several years ago. He was actually witnessing an event which took place 160,000 years ago, because the star was so far away that it took 160,000 years for the light from the explosion to reach the earth. Those who believe in a young universe believe that God created the cosmos with all the light beams traveling toward us from distant stars already in place. It is obvious that God is capable of doing this. But would He?
     Either God gradually created the universe, beginning several billion years ago (possibly by means of the Big Bang cosmology most scientists agree with today), or He created a mature universe about 10,000 years ago. If the latter is true, then He has mischievously created fictitious information about fictitious events that have never really taken place. This is called deception. I dont believe God chooses to operate this way. Ergo, an old universe.
     For the universe to be ten thousand years old, all objects visible to us must be closer than ten thousand light years. We know for a fact that this cannot be true. By the simple parallax method, we can accurately calculate distances from earth to certain not-so-distant objects. One way to do this is by taking measurements to certain objects when the earth is at various locations in its orbit around the sun. The earths orbit is about 186 million miles in diameter, so it is easy to mathematically calculate distances well beyond the 10,000 light years required by young-earth creationists.
     Many other evidences exist to undermine the theories espoused by young earth creationists, but we will not discuss them here. It is not my intention to belittle or denigrate those who espouse belief in a young universe, because most of them are truly godly people, intent on doing everything possible to locate the truth. I do, however, believe that it is important to learn what the truth is, and without open and honest dialog between young- and old-earthers, and between the Christian church and the scientific community, such a goal is hopeless. We must end the bickering and name-calling flung back and forth between the two creationist camps, and demonstrate to the world that, although we disagree about the origins of the universe, we nevertheless resepect and love one another. I don't see this happening today. In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity.

Who Cares?

Belief in an ancient universe is simply one of the shifts in thinking that are necessary if we are to gain a more realistic view of Gods creation and His plans for us. Why should our opinion about the age of the universe or the origins of life matter anyway? Did Paul not simply preach Christ crucified? Will we be any better off as a body of believers with a more realistic and scientifically verifiable viewpoint on the creation and existence of the universe? I have a broad, general answer and a more narrowly defined answer to these questions.
The broad, long-term answer is that yes, the facts matter because God put them there. We are purposefully created with inquisitive minds, and by using the scientific methods that have been developed we cannot help but learn more about God and therefore to love Him more. To state that we do not care about the origin of the universe is to state that we do not care about the most awe-inspiring physical creation that God has partaken in to date (to our knowledge).
The short term answer has to do again with the question presented in this article: Is the theory of biological evolution true? If the young earth creationists are wrong, and the universe is indeed billions of years old, then a foundation has been laid which happens to agree with the fundamental foundation of evolution: evolution required billions of years to take place, and the universe is billions of years old. These two facts neither support nor confound one another, but they do provide a common starting point. And such a common point can create dialog between the church and the scientific community which has, for the most part, remained staunchly anti-bible. This is because they cannot bring themselves to believe in a bible which, according to the interpretations of most modern evangelicals, clashes with the abundant scientific evidence for an ancient universe.

The True Creation Account?

Genesis Unbound is a very interesting and highly recommended book. The major premise is that the Genesis creation account is basically the history of Gods preparation of the Garden for inhabitation by human beings, not the creation of the whole universe as the common belief runs. Although this paradigm may be completely counter-intuitive to most modern evangelicals, I submit that this may be because of the faulty assumptions - which, of course, lead to faulty teaching - that the evangelical community has made for the past few decades (centuries?). When we read the Genesis account of creation, which establishes light and dark, night and day, evening and morning in verse 2, but does not speak about the creation of the sun (which, of course, is what causes night and day) until verse 16, we ought to get very confused.
     This brings me to a short but necessary diversion. The conundrum I just described has existed since the translation of the English bible, yet few question the apparent contradiction. Believing scripture to be infallible, some invent simple explanations (entirely inadequate ones) as to why day and night appeared before the sun was created. If scripture is indeed infallible, then day and night must have been caused by some other phenomena until verse 16 provides us with a sun. At that time, a treaty was struck whereby this unknown light source abdicated its responsibilities, allowing the sun to take over as arbiter of day and night. I dont buy it.
     On the other hand, maybe scripture is not infallible. To avoid any confusion, I should perhaps rephrase that last comment: maybe certain aspects of the human translation of scripture lack the accuracy or clarity of the original language texts or the original intent of the authors. The meaning of the original Hebrew phrases in the Genesis creation account is what the author of Genesis Unbound takes to task, and he does an admirable job of describing exactly how chapters 1 and 2 of Genesis may depict activities centered around the Garden of Eden rather than the entire earth.
     Lets assume for a moment that Sailhamers depiction of creation events is true, in short, that the creation of the cosmos, the era of the dinosaurs, and the shaping of ancient earth structures and fossil records all occurred in verse 1: In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth and before verse 2 And the earth was without form and void. If this is the case, then it leaves the door open for an indeterminate period of time in which life could have developed on earth. This does not mean that it did; simply that it could have.
     This period of development would not be subject to the rules imposed by the Genesis account of creation. In other words, God did indeed create animals after their own kind to inhabit the garden, but this may not have included the gradual development of basic life forms in the primordial soup before and during Genesis 1:1. I find it interesting that the bible mentions many specific types of life as they are being created, including birds, water-dwelling creatures, fish, land animals, and domesticated animals. But conspicuous by their absence in the creation account are such creatures as reptiles and amphibians, bacteria, protozoa, microbes, insects and a plethora of other microscopic and/or very primitive life forms known to have existed for quite some time.
     Think about this; in the macro world of animals - the species and families which include such diverse and interesting creatures as ostriches, platypuses, elephants, whales, fruit bats and hyenas - there is not a single evidence of a new or developing species anywhere that would imply that macro-evolution or Darwins development of species is true. Distinct species of animals exist. Now, a particular group within a species may change slightly due to environmental effects, but never has humanity witnessed or has the fossil record borne out an actual case of, say, a toucan turning into an aardvark.
     Even if we could demonstrate the advancement of life, or the development of a distinct type of microbe from another, we would still need to explain the initial creation of DNA, the building block of life. It has been estimated that the statistical probability of the DNA molecule developing by accident on the surface of the early earth requires far more than the estimated 20 billion year age of the universe provides. The probability is so remote that it is difficult to express in numbers. In Genesis and the Big Bang, Dr. Gerald Schroeder explains that it would have required 1 x 10130 (a one followed by 130 zeros) carbon atoms to provide enough material or fuel to create a DNA molecule by chance, assuming there had been one million attempts per second since the beginning of the Big Bang 15 billion years ago. Problem is, there are only an estimated 1 x 1080 atoms of all types in the entire known universe. But if we know and believe that God had the power to create complete organisms in the Garden during the first chapter of Genesis, then we certainly know He has the ability to develop life on a gradual basis, similar to the method of evolution described by modern science.
     A common problem Christians have in even considering evolutionary arguments is that the very word evolution has become a scandal in evangelical circles. This should not be. Evolution of all kinds happen around us daily. We should not react negatively to the assertion that God used gradual processes to create the universe simply because this theory is espoused by evolutionists. The American automobile has gone through an incredible evolution in the past few decades. No rational person would argue with that. Yet evolution remains a theological dirty word. As Hugh Ross explains in The Creator and the Cosmos:

In the physical sciences, evolution typically is defined as change taking place with respect to time. Such a definition is theologically neutral. No claim is made as to whether the observed changes are naturally driven or supernaturally driven. In this respect the Bible is evolutionary in its teachings on creation since it frames the creation account into a chronology of change through time - eleven major creation events sequenced over six creation days (p. 61).

I believe God created the universe gradually over a period of billions of years, and that He also possibly created certain forms of life gradually. An official term exists to describe just such a creation paradigm; theistic evolution. It assumes that the evolution scenario dictated by todays most learned scientists may be true, but rather than the naturalistic causes offered by science, it was God that directed the gradual advancement and creation of species. The major problem with such a system is that it assumes gradual development of more advanced species from less advanced ones - for instance, apes turning gradually into humans - for which there is not one shred of fossil evidence. Perhaps I am suggesting a compromise between theistic evolution and evangelicalisms extremely inflexible interpretation of creation.

Sporadic Creation

I want to create a scenario for our readers - one which for lack of a better name I will call Sporadic Creation - which will require a momentary suspension of disbelief for those convinced of a young earth. This may be difficult for those of us with rigid assumptions about creation. Don't get me wrong; rigidity is a very good thing when it comes to theologically significant ideals, and particularly about what the bible has specifically said about events such as the sacrifice Christ made for us on the cross. God has obviously established a lot of black and white answers to issues which this world believes should be interpreted as gray. In fact, this phenomenon is at the heart of the relativistic thinking practiced by a majority of modern culture. However, for the sake of my arguments here, and to cause our readers to take stock of what it is they truly believe, please read the following plot with an open mind. I will openly state beforehand that this viewpoint is not new by any means, but is similar to that espoused by many Christian scientists.

God created the universe with a Big Bang. This much is clear from the enormous body of evidence we have gleaned from the universe which surrounds us. Over time, the gases in the young universe began to coalesce into galaxies, eventually creating stars and planets. All of this happened under the divine providence and careful guidance and continuous adjustment of God himself, much like a skilled carpenter building a large, magnificent house from a pile of disorganized stuff.

As the earth cooled and hardened into an identifiable planet, the conditions created were such that life could be supported. To our knowledge, it is the only planet around with such capabilities. At the appropriate time, when he had created the correct conditions, Gods Spirit hovered over the face of the deep, organizing the building blocks of life in the primordial soup. Creating life as if from a block of clay, he formed basic organisms, microscopic creatures which were intended to enrich the ocean, help create oxygen in the atmosphere, and to otherwise prepare the earth for a more excellent plan yet to be revealed.

Suddenly, for reasons unknown to mere mortal men, God decided the time was right to begin a most marvelous experiment. The creation account we read in the first two chapters of Genesis are enacted on the face of the earth, the Garden of Eden created for inhabitation by mankind, intended to be Gods companions. Specific species of animals, birds, trees, edible plants, fish, game and livestock are all created specifically to serve mankinds needs. All of these forms of life are directly or indirectly served and supported by the microorganisms already in existence in the oceans and other bodies of water.

The world we see today is largely unchanged from that which Adam and Eve knew, except for obvious damage and rearrangements caused by the flood, certain animal extinctions, a much greater human population and technologies which affect the demeanor and health of the planet.

The creation account suggested here does not compromise biblical authority in the least, assuming Sailhamers depiction of creation events is accurate. It does not diminish the power, creativity or omnipotence of God, since He has obviously controlled the entire process from the very beginning. It does not require evolution of advanced life forms for which no fossil evidence exists. And it may provide the basis for further discussion between modern science and theology regarding a coalescence of the two currently mutually exclusive belief systems. Such a compromise would require (1) that evangelicals be willing to consider interpretation of the bible which may be different from our traditional interpretations yet more true to the original texts, and (2) that modern naturalistic science be willing to admit to the grave weaknesses inherent in strictly naturalistic evolutionary theories and consider the necessity of divine intervention at certain points in the process.
I must make it clear at this point that I use the word compromise above very carefully. A common accusation by young earth creationists is that Christians who believe in gradual creation and an ancient universe are compromising biblical truth when they agree with naturalistic scientists who believe in purely natural evolution in the absence of any divine being. This is not the case. My effort at compromise would entail leaving our differences behind, and coming to the table with secular evolutionists to define what their evidence and our theology have in common. It is not to water down the gospel as many old-universe creationists are accused of, but to demonstrate to these scientists that Christians are interested in science, in the facts, and in truth learned from nature. This could be the beginning of an effort to convince non-Christian scientists and laymen alike that the bible and science indeed have a lot in common, and they need not exclude one another. Then salvation would become viable for a whole host of unbelievers who cannot presently accept the typical narrow, stifling faith embraced by many evangelicals today.

Getting Our Own Heads on Straight

We as Christians in a post-Christian society must come to a knowledge of why we object so strongly to the theory of evolution. I believe that the theory as presented by todays naturalistic practitioners of science ought to be resisted with great effort. But why? Is it because we have some evidence that evolution cannot be true? Is it merely because we are anti-science? Do we believe God does not have the ability to create on a slow, gradual basis - that unless he creates something instantly out of nothing that He is somehow less than all-powerful? Is it because many modern scientists are overtly atheistic and we want to fight them at every point of friction where their humanistic philosophy contacts our mono-theistic world view? Why, exactly, have we become so adamant - fiercely so at times - about the creation account commonly accepted by twentieth-century evangelicalism?
There are possibly dozens of answers to these questions, each one lengthy enough to fill a book. But I think we can boil them down to a few fundamentals. First, I will address why I think we as a body of believers, perceived by the world today as the church, believe the way we do. Then I will suggest the way we ought to be interacting with science to resolve some of the issues presented thus far.

Where We Are Now

Due in large part to the Christian home culture in which most Christian children are raised, I think it is safe to state that most of us Christians (I am aware and very, very hopeful that there are lots of non-Christians also reading this article) were taught that God created the entire universe about ten thousand years ago from nothing, that at a certain time He created all of the animal and plant life and, of course, mankind within a literal six-day time frame, and that any theory which smacks of evolution ought to be absolutely rejected. This belief has ostensibly come from and is sustained by a literal interpretation of the first two chapters of Genesis.
     First, let me make it clear that literal interpretations can get us into trouble. For example, if we are to literally interpret Genesis, then how does light (day one) precede the sun (day four)? Why does the bible say there was evening and there was morning, the first (second, third...) day? Does not morning precede evening, not the other way around?
     Why does the bible say in Genesis 2:5-7 that When the Lord God made the earth and the heavens...and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the Lord God had not sent rain on the earth...the Lord God formed the man from the dust of the ground...? It sounds here like man preceded plants. I thought man was created on day six, and the plants on day three?
     Why does Isaiah 40:31 promise that “those who hope in the Lord will soar on wings like eagles”? Will we literally sprout wings if we hope in the Lord? Several passages in the Psalms (36:7, 57:1, 91:4) talk about finding refuge under God's wings and feathers. Does God have feathers? Of course I understand that some parts of scripture were originally intended to be figurative or allegorical. But is our understanding of ancient Hebrew texts so infallible as to insist on day and night before the creation of the sun? Should we not also exercise some common sense?
My point is that literal interpretations can sometimes be dangerous. This is one reason why it is crucial that we utilize both of Gods revelations equally to get to the heart of the matter. It is important to realize that in questioning our literal interpretations of Scripture, we are not calling into question the authority of God or of his Holy Word; we are questioning man's interpretation of God's perfect revelation. There is a world of difference between questioning God and doubting our own interpretation of him. We are, of course, human beings, and as such are fallible both in our knowledge of ancient languages and in our tendency to interpret everything (not just scripture) relative to our own spiritual, scientific and sociological world views. It is arrogant of us to think that we can perfectly understand a document written by the Creator of the universe. Instead, we ought to use every avenue of information which is available to us, comparing the created universe to the written revelation in order to find truth:

God created the universe, and is also responsible for the words of the Bible, and since he does not lie or deceive, there can be no contradiction between the words of the Bible and the facts of nature. Any conflict between science and Christian theology must be attributed to human misinterpretation. (Hugh Ross, Creation and Time, pp. 11-12)

While we are, of course, expected to understand and live according to what we learn from scripture, our knowledge of it will remain incomplete until our redemption:

For now we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears (1 Corinthians 13:9-10).

A Dangerous Tendency

Let us never be so adamant about our own limited interpretations that we exclude other Christian brothers and sisters from our fellowship. In Creation and Time, after much lament about terrible things said about him by various young-earth creationists, Hugh Ross quotes an article which appeared in the May 1992 issue of Back To Genesis, the newsletter of the Institute for Creation Research. The article was written by John Morris, son of founder Henry Morris and now the leader of ICR:

I am still uncertain about young-earth creationism being a requirement for church membership; perhaps it would be proper to give new members time to grow and mature under good teaching. But I do know one thing: [young-earth] creationism should be made a requirement for Christian leadership! No church should sanction a pastor, Sunday School teacher, deacon, elder or Bible-study leader who knowledgeably and purposefully errs on this crucial doctrine.

I find it incredible that the chief spokesman for the ICR, an organization which insists upon literal interpretations of Scripture, would so blatantly err on the literal, easily understood scriptural requirements for spiritual service. The bible clearly states the conditions necessary for eldership and spiritual leadership in Titus 1:6-9 and 1 Timothy 3:1-12. Nowhere is a believer's opinion about the age of the universe seen as a prerequisite for spiritual leadership. To hear such a statement from a man with such obvious evangelical influence ought to bother us significantly.
This, then, is the situation modern evangelicalism finds itself embroiled in. To embrace young-earth creationism is to reject increasingly more evidence being discovered by modern science which demands an ancient universe. And to embrace old-earth creationism is to subject oneself to the wrath of the primarily young-earth evangelical community. Where is the unity so sought after by the Apostle Paul? To judge old-earth proponents as evil, as tools of Satan, as no different than atheistic evolutionists, is to present a message to the world that the Christian community hates each other, so why is the Christian message different than anyone else's? This stupidity must stop. I am not insisting that young-earth creationists immediately adopt the old-earth paradigm. I am insisting on spiritual unity, on putting a stop to the slurs and witch hunts. I am insisting that those on both sides of the debate humble themselves first before God, then before those whom they have slandered (read James 4:11-12), asking forgiveness and learning to live in this world as devoted servants of Christ, able to disagree with each other without personally attacking one another, while we all go about the work of God's kingdom.

The Danger of Tradition

Aside from a sometimes blind insistence on literal interpretations of scripture (remember our “literal interpretations” are only as good as our faulty understanding as imperfect human beings), another problem facing the church is the human tendency to cling to tradition. We like to live in our comfort zone. When an idea conflicts with our present interpretations of truth, we react instinctively in order to protect the intellectual world we have created. The mere mention of the word “evolution” raises our hackles.
I once believed that Jesus will rapture the church prior to the Great Tribulation, but now I believe otherwise, based on biblical evidence I have learned for myself. Whether I am right or wrong is much less important than whether I am living for Christ while still on this earth, and that I don't denigrate others for believing differently than I believe. Regardless of my stance on the topic, blindly clinging to a particular tradition will only cause dissention among Christians and will present a picture of disunity and discord to the world around us.
Tradition can be dangerous in that it causes us to accept certain beliefs without our thinking through the tough questions for ourselves. We have all been taught to believe in certain ways about certain things. I believe that it takes a special kind of mind to live by the maxim quoted earlier from 1 Thessalonians 5:21:

“Test everything. Hold on to the good.”

To test everything is easier said than done, but it is a crucial exercise for those who would learn to think freely and accurately about the world around and within them. Thinking for oneself is a break from tradition, and is a healthy exercise.

Where Should We Go From Here?

This article is about evolution, and the possibility that the theory may hold more truth than most Christians give it credit for. All of the groundwork established above has been in preparation for this one simple truth; God may have used “evolutionary” (gradual) processes to accomplish some of his creation work. But the important point to remember is, regardless of the actual process used by God, godly Christian men and women stand on both sides of the issue, and these people are dedicated believers in Christ, they staunchly defend the gospel, and they will all live together with each other and with Christ throughout eternity.
Let us not be afraid that our faith is so weak that a theory about divine evolution can damage it. God is far stronger than all of our lofty arguments. If the gospel of Christ is so fragile that belief in an ancient universe can destroy it, then it is not true, Christ never died for us, and God does not exist. But if God does exist, if he truly created us, if he has created us in his own image with minds that can think and reason and perform science, then we have no choice but to honor him with our minds and our scientific endeavors. Some of us will interpret science one way, some another way. But in the end, we are all fallible human beings with only a dim reflection of truth. Our energy will be better spent striving to understand opposing viewpoints rather than denigrating them. And in the very process of understanding one another, we will be creating the unity in Christ demanded of us by the Word of God, and will open up a whole new avenue to those who do not yet believe in the God of the bible.
I implore young-earth creationists and those who believe in an ancient universe to put aside their differences and embrace one another, in thought and in deed. Only then can we present the body of Christ to the lost and dying world around us, and perhaps get closer to the real truth, wherever it lay.

Gel Home