Skip to main content

Creation and Evolution

In Monkey Trials and Gorilla Sermons: Evolution and Christianity from Darwin to Intelligent Design, historian Peter Bowler makes it his goal to show that the history of the debate between creationism and evolution was not two-sided, as we are tempted to see it today, with atheistic Darwinism on the one hand and young-Earth creationism on the other. Instead, he shows that there was an array of alternative interpretations to earth and human origins, some of which represent what Bowler calls the “liberal synthesis,” or liberal theologians’ attempts to promote a compromise between Scripture and evolution. In the midst of his argument, he explains the two main issues that Christians have with naturalistic evolution, and attempts to show that there are ways to overcome them.

The issues Bowler mention involved random variation on the one hand and the requirement of competition and death on the other. The idea that humans are a result of random variation implies there is no purpose in human evolution; and if there is no purpose in evolution, God never intended a humanity that has the moral and spiritual character that we do. (23-24, 220) Further, the idea that humans evolved through a process of competition and death contradicts the Christian view that suffering is a result of Adam’s sin in the Garden of Eden. Suffering could not have been a precursor to Adam, Christians say, because it was Adam who caused the suffering in the first place. (27-28, 225-226)

Bowler responds to the first problem of purposeless evolution by arguing that it might be best to question the atheistic Darwinist belief that evolution is totally nonprogressive. Drawing on several examples, he concludes that God may have used natural selection as the evolutionary mechanism to produce the moral and spiritual humans we see today. This may, at first glance, mean we have no real freedom, because God ultimately determined that we would become who we are; but he goes on to cite three theologians and one scientist, who argue that natural selection may have been the only way that God could give humanity the freedom to develop in the way he determined us to go. He did not, they say, give us a specific goal to reach, but risked the fact that we may not have developed in the way he wanted. (222-225)

Bowler holds up the belief of John Polkinghorne and John F. Haught as a possible response to the second problem of suffering. If God gave us a measure of freedom, they say, it should not surprise us that we would use that freedom to cause suffering. God’s incarnation in the world, to them, would be intended to sympathize with the suffering inherent in humanity and in nature. Bowler understands that answers like this and the one cited above would be inadequate to fundamentalists, but he is encouraged by the fact that liberal Christian thinkers are now able to formulate a view of their faith that comes close to fitting with Darwinist ideology. This shows him that there are, as there historically have been, alternatives to the polarized views of fundamentalists and atheistic Darwinists. (226-227)

Note that this exposition on Bowler's work is just that. I am not critiquing his thesis here, but only exposing it. It may suffice here to say that he convincingly shows that the perspective of a two-sided argument, between young-Earth creationism on the one hand and random evolution on the other, is oversimplified. Whether or to what degree I believe God included evolution in man's makeup is the subject of another post.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Heroes

Although we have several examples of heroes in our day, one of the best known is of a woman named Agnes Gonxhe Bojaxhiu (“Gonja Bojaju”), who devoted her life to sustaining the “poor, sick, orphaned, and dying.” Her venue was Calcutta, India, where she served as a teacher until she began to take notice of the poverty there. Seeking to do something about it, she began an organization that consisted of just thirteen members at its inception. Called the “Missionaries of Charity,” the organization would eventually burgeon into well over 5,000 members worldwide, running approximately 600 missions, schools and shelters in 120 countries; and caring for the orphaned, blind, aged, disabled, and poor. As her personal work expanded, she traveled to countries like Lebanon, where she rescued 37 children from a hospital by pressing for peace between Israel and Palestine; to Ethiopia, where she traveled to help the hungry; to Chernobyl, Russia, to assist victims of the nuclear meltdown there; and to
2 comments
Read more

Comparative Medical Care

One thing I'd like to understand is why there is such a difference between medical costs here and those in Haiti. At the time the book Mountains Beyond Mountains was written, in 2003, it often cost $15,000 to $20,000 annually to treat a patient with tuberculosis, while it cost one one-hundredth of that-- $150 to $200-- to treat a patient for the disease in Haiti. Even if the figures aren't completely accurate, the sheer difference would still be there. Indeed, the United States pays more per capita for medical care than any other country on Earth. My first guess for why the disparity exists is that there is a market willing and able to pay more for medical treatment, so suppliers see the demand and respond with higher prices. According to at least one doctor (go to http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2009/05/what_is_the_cause_of_excess_co.php), part of the reason is administrative prices here. People here have a higher standard of living, and so the cost of care is shifted to
2 comments
Read more

The Nice Guy Fallacy

I read part of a poem recently by one of my favorite poets. It reads: I envy not in any moods The captive void of noble rage The linnet born within the cage That never knew the summer woods. I envy not the beast that takes His license in the field of time Unfetter'd by the sense of crime To whom a conscience never wakes. Nor what may call itself as bles't The heart that never plighted troth But stagnates in the weeds of sloth Nor any want-begotten rest. I hold it true, whate'er befall I feel it, when I sorrow most 'Tis better to have loved and lost Than never to have loved at all. At base, Tennyson contrasted a life of risk, and consequent pain, with one of security. He sides conclusively with the life of risk, and says he fails to envy those who have faced no hardship. I agree with him; and, for good or ill, his words are just as relevant today as they were in the nineteenth century. Like then, there are those today who choose to live their lives with as little risk as
2 comments
Read more