From: kilroy@gboro.glassboro.edu (Dr Nancy's Sweetie)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Subject: Evolution and Christianity
Summary: Are faith and science incompatible?
Keywords: Creation, evolution, science, evidence, `Woof!'
Date: 16 Oct 92 18:36:36 GMT
Organization: Wheaton Alumna HouseHusbands of New Jersey, Inc
Disclaimer: Brandy the WonderDog likes old bones, but only with meat on them.


1) Some Things To Guide A Discussion

Discussions about Creation and Evolution often become debates over evidence,
which we should avoid.  What is important for this list is the religious
interaction between Scripture and Science; a debate about carbon dating or ice
cores should be reserved for another forum, such as Usenet's `talk.origins'.

Another thing to avoid is talking at cross-purposes.  `Evolution' is a set of
theories about the development of species over time, and is not about where
the Universe came from or whether a Creator made it.  Most atheists believe
that the Universe is a cosmic accident and that evolution explains part of it;
but there isn't anything in evolution that contradicts belief in God.  (I see
no conflict between evolutionary theory and Christianity.)

Also, `evolution' means different things in different contexts.  Breeding dogs
for particular tasks involves changes in characteristics over generations, and
is sometimes called `microevolution'.  Producing new incompatible species
(macroevolution), is something else.  Just saying `evolution', without making
clear what you wish to discuss, will likely lead to a useless discussion.


2) Religious Significance Of Evolutionary Ideas

I believe that what matters is God's creation of humans.  What is important
about humans -- what makes us different -- is that we have rational souls.
(Not to debate about the tripartite view of humans; I use that language
because we're all familiar with it.)

When I talk of God creating the first human, I mean the first biological
creature with a rational soul.  I don't care about whether God put that soul
in a body of completely new design or one based on a previous model.  All that
Genesis says is that God made man -- not what he looked like.

God performed an act of special creation to make man in his image -- that is
what Christians should be worried about.  How long it took, and what other
things lived and died along the way, are questions for scientists to argue
about and dig up bones trying to solve.  I'm satisfied to leave physicists and
chemists and archaeologists to their scientific pursuits.

Discovering irrefutable proof that humans evolved from other primates -- or
absolute proof that the world is only 6000 years old -- would not change my
religious faith or practice in any significant way.  Neither has any bearing
on the reliability of Scripture, the teachings of Jesus, my own sins, the
responsibility of Christians to their neighbours, or God's provision for
bridging the distance with men.  I consider those things important; the age of
the earth and the development of species are of some academic interest, but
neither is central to following Jesus.


3) Problems With Some Religious Objections

 a) Biblical Exegetes goof up.

Some people say the Bible record proves that the world is only a few thousand
years old.  But how do they know they interpreted the passages correctly?
People have rgued that the earth didn't move, based on Psalm 104:5.  This is
now considered a complete mistake, a literal reading of a poetic verse.  Many
believers interpret Genesis as literal; but can we be sure that we aren't
making the same mistake those others did?

 b) "Maybe those fossils are God's practical jokes."

Some people say "Maybe God faked evidence to make the world look older than it
is so we would know our science was useless and only trust the Bible."  But
what about people who never had our Scriptures?  Lots of people have dug up
old bones; if God has made fake evidence, he will have misled them.  For those
without access to the Bible, the only Divine revelation available to them
would be intentionally misleading.

I don't believe God would intentionally mislead people, even non-Christians.
And if he did mislead THEM in the revelation he provided, he could have misled
US in what he provided.

(Humorous aside, credit to Jim Meritt: If some powerful being arranged it so
 the world appears billions of years old, maybe we should go along to humor
 him.  He might be mad if he finds we've outsmarted him.  8-)

 c) "If I take study this subject it will undermine my faith."

I know someone who avoided geology classes and other things which would give
evidence of an old earth.  It had been strongly stressed both in church and at
home that believing in young-earth Creationism was necessary for Christians.
She feared that if she studied these issues and began to believe in an old
earth, God would send her to Hell.  But she accidentally took some classes
that demolished young-earth Creationism.  She has since joined a denomination
which doesn't say that belief in evolution is The Unpardonable Sin.

The Bible says (in Proverbs 25:2) that it is God's glory to conceal a matter,
and the glory of Kings to search it out.  So far as I am concerned, this means
that study of God's creation is part of our job.  God made the world and said
it was good; studying it and learning about it -- even if you come up with
wrong conclusions sometimes -- is a part of appreciating it.

Anyone who avoids science classes because they it might undermine some belief
is on the wrong track, I think.  First, they are already doubting -- otherwise
they'd be eager to reconfirm their ideas, not afraid of having them disproven.
Secondly, I believe that Christianity includes a duty to study evidence and
ensure that our beliefs are true.  This includes constantly checking our
theological doctrines, studying evidence so we don't wrongly accuse innocent
people of wrongdoing, and making sure that our scientific claims are in
keeping with the evidence and correct scientific procedure.

Obviously, you can't do all this at once; there's no requirement to study
every issue in detail every day.  But actively avoiding evidence is different
than not getting around to studying it.

My suggestion to anyone interested in a scientific field, but worried about
losing a belief, is to go ahead and study -- if a belief can't stand up to
investigation, it isn't worth believing.  If you belong to a group that is
strongly committed to young-earth ideas, and which would reject you if you
believed in an old earth, I would suggest that you rethink your membership in
that group.  Believing that the world is 6000 years old will not provide
salvation; neither does believing evolution cost your soul.  Christianity
doesn't hinge on exactly correct ideas about scientific issues.  Any group
which has irrelevant rules about belief for Christians has added so much to
the Bible that actually following Jesus probably figures in little if at all.


4) Science/Public Policy Issues:

 a) Scientists goof up.

Those who study origins and related issues are not perfect.  At times, their
theories will be wrong, they'll overstate how good the evidence is, they'll
misunderstand what the evidence means.  But that does not mean their efforts
and ideas are worthless.  All it means is that they are not infallible -- and
responsible scientists do not claim to be.  We point to instances of error by
scientists as proof that evolution is completely false.  Neither should we
believe someone just because he has fancy titles.  If this is an issue of
serious concern, then we have to do the hard work of thinking for ourselves.

 b) Science deals in falsifiable ideas.

Some Creationists have no interest in revising their ideas -- they say they
believe in a young earth, and that any evidence must fit with a young earth
when properly understood.  These people are not doing science: unless they can
think of evidence or experiments which will prove their ideas are wrong, their
ideas are unfalsifiable.  Unless they are willing to change their hypotheses,
they are not scientists.

This is okay -- one can simply say "I believe Genesis is literally correct and
that the earth is a few thousand years old.  Scientific theories change from
time to time, and I'm not interested in keeping up with the latest revisions."
Nothing requires people to be scientists all the time.  But to claim that you
are doing scientific inquiry, when you have your mind made up in advance and
you have no interest in refining your hypotheses, is misrepresentation.  No
one has to follow the scientific method -- but you can't honestly claim to be
acting scientifically unless you do.

There are valid complaints to be made against how the scientific community has
made evolution into a sort of dogma not to be questioned; indeed, I think some
adherents of evolution have themselves left the realm of science.  But just
because some who believe evolution are stomping on scientific method does not
mean that non-evolutionists have permission to do science badly.

 c) Other religions have Creation stories.

If we insist on teaching a particular interpretation of Genesis in schools,
can we rightly object to others who want THEIR religious ideas taught as well?

I think the best way to deal with this issue in public schools is to present
the known facts and observations as accurately as possible, with no reference
to any religions.  I do not agree with everything taught in schools, or how it
is taught -- I am not saying that I think our current system is perfect, or
even very good.  But giving time to one religion and not to any others would
be no improvement.  Science classes should be about the falsifiable theories
and known observations, period.  Ideas which cannot be refuted (at least
theoretically) have no place in a science classroom.  It is true that many
current science classes fail to teach objectively (on this and other issues);
but talking about one or a few religious interpretations would be worse.

 *

Finally, note that I do not claim current evolutionary theorising is correct;
nor do I claim that this or that interpretation of the Bible is correct.  I
see a significant difference between the important part of the Scripture
passages and the realm of scientific study.  I think that attempts to use
the Bible as a Science Textbook are sadly misguided, because I don't think the
Scriptural writers were at all concerned with digging up rocks or reassembling
skeletons.  They were talking about God.


Darren F Provine / kilroy@gboro.glassboro.edu
"Monkey, n.  An arboreal animal which makes itself at home in genealogical
 trees." -- Ambrose Bierce, _The Devil's Dictionary_