Subscribe to Posts
apologies to the memory of Charles Darwin
Today marks the 200th birthday of Charles Darwin, a man whose name has been much maligned by many in my own American evangelical tribe.
My friend, Carl Safina, an ocean conservationist and author of the acclaimed Song for the Blue Ocean told me that his two heroes are Charles Darwin and Jesus; Darwin for revealing the unity of all living things, and Jesus for teaching us to love our enemies. Would that my fellow believers understood as well the rule of Jesus, a rule which demands that we bother to understand each other.
a tender soul was he
Charles Darwin was a tender soul. He eventually lost his rather conventional nineteenth century Anglican belief. It wasn’t science that led to his loss of faith. It was a broken heart.
Charles Darwin lost three of his eight children. It was the loss of his daughter Annie at the age of ten, a cruel and drawn out dying, that dealt his waning faith a crushing blow. He missed the public unveiling of his new theory because he was tending to another dead child.
Darwin wasn’t eager to start a culture war. About the time that his speculations about the origin of species appeared in his private journals, he began to suffer chronic, lifelong and undiagnosed maladies. He hated conflict.
put yourself in his muck boots
Put yourself in his shoes. That is, after all, the meaning of “do unto others as you would have them do unto you” (the Jesus summary of the Bible, you will recall.) The religious authorities of his day held great power in England. Anglican clergymen practiced “natural theology” as a hobby–the only real biology of his time. The doctrine of a static and special creation of each species independent of the others under-girded the social order: everything forever in its proper place, gender, race and class, right up to her majesty, the Queen. This doctrine supported the notion that slaves belonged in the fields and women in the parlor, serving tea.
Darwin’s nerdy findings were going up against the powers and the principalities of his time.
Including Emma, his beloved wife. She wrote him an anguished letter. Would his scientific musings result in their spending eternity separated from each other? Darwin read the letter many times throughout his life–this portion of the letter is stained with his tears.
the man’s seditious idea
And what was his seditious idea? That one can account for the variety of species by a natural mechanism. When considered through the lens of time, the line between species is not so firmly fixed: one population of creatures becomes more like the members who breed the most and pass on their survival edge to offspring.
He called his idea “natural selection,” as contrasted with the intentional selection of a breeder who in a few generations can shape a line of dogs or cats or pigeons as he pleases. It was nature’s means of selection. (Darwin was agnostic regarding nature’s God.)
the “father of biblical inerrancy” liked Darwin’s idea
Darwin’s idea made perfect sense to B.B. Warfield, the father of the doctrine of biblical inerrancy. Warfield bred horses so he knew what intentional selection could do. Why wouldn’t God work through a natural means of selection his wonders to perform? He is, after all, as Jonathan Edwards said, “a God of means.”
After reading The Origin of Species Warfield wrote, “I do not think that there is any general statement in the Bible or any part of the account of creation, either as given in Genesis 1 and 2 or elsewhere alluded to, that need be opposed to evolution.” This, by the way, is the same B.B. Warfield who contributed articles to that set of pamphlets called “The Fundamentals“–yes, the same volumes that gave “Fundamentalism” its name. (When it comes to science these days, most evangelicals are more sectarian in outook than were the founders of the modern American fundamentalist movement.)
Darwin’s friend and colleague Asa Gray, a Harvard botanist and devout evangelical, saw no inherent conflict either between natural selection and a creating God. In fact, Asa Gray did more to promote Darwin’s writings in the United States than any other scientist. He was one of Darwin’s closest friends. An evangelical.
But these evangelicals took the time to understand Darwin’s idea and consider the evidence for it. They sought to understand the man before calling him dangerous or his ideas heretical. They could understand if the man was too busy with his beetles and barnacles to integrate these new scientific insights with Christian faith. That was a task for people more steeped in theology than he.
we’re hard on our scientists
We’re hard on our scientists, we doctrine and dogma-driven Christians–we who sometimes use religion as a form of control. We who parrot the party line without stopping to think what we’re saying or why. Galileo felt the wrath of our kind in his time. Quick to condemn, slow to apologize for getting it wrong.
When we stand before the judgment seat of Christ–the friend of sinners, the man of sorrows acquainted with grief–how will we answer for the slander slathered on this good man’s name?
I for one, on behalf of my tribe, am sorry.
ADD YOUR VOICE TO THIS EVANGELICAL APOLOGY TO DARWIN
500 years after the catholic church forced Galileo to recant his findings that the earth revolved around the sun, Pope John Paul II, apologized on behalf of the church. Evangelicals have no pope. It’s up to each of us to play the man, polycarp. Leave a brief comment to indicate that you are an evangelical (pastor, layperson, whatever) and you wish to add your amen. Invite any evangelicals you know to do likewise. I won’t post any comments that say anything nasty about Darwin–not on his birthday. Of course you’re free to take me to task. It’s still America.
SECULAR SCIENTISTS: Evangelicals need to hear from you. Please post a comment letting us know how the American evangelical response to evolutionary science has affected you personally. Does it warm you heart to our message or give you the willies? Give it to us straight, please.
Tags: Anglicanism, annie darwin, apologies, asa gray, b.b. warfield, biology, carl safina, charles darwin, creation, culture war, emma darwin, evolution, gallileo, Jesus, jonathan edwards, natural selection, natural theology, religion, science, sorry, species
February 12th, 2009 at 10:28 am
Amen.
Let us also remember to wish a happy birthday to Abraham Lincoln, 200 years old today:
“Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such purpose, and you allow him to make war at pleasure…. If today he should choose to say he thinks it necessary to invade Canada to prevent the British from invading us, how could you stop him? You may say to him, ‘I see no probability of the British invading us,’ but he will say to you, ‘Be silent; I see it, if you don’t.’”
– Abraham Lincoln, in an 1848 letter to his law partner, William Herndon, criticizing Polk’s decision to invade Mexico for the purpose of preventing future war (and, in essence, pointing out some of the flaws in what is now called the “Bush Doctrine of Preventative War”), quoted from a letter published in the Post Crescent by Jack Bradford, quoted from a December 26, 2003, letter to Cliff Walker by Robert Nordlander.
http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/lincoln.htm
February 12th, 2009 at 10:36 am
I’m an evangelical pastor. Count me in. I too, on our behalf, am sorry. Amen.
February 12th, 2009 at 10:40 am
I’m in!
February 12th, 2009 at 11:00 am
Darwin actually marveled at Creation, studied it, appreciated it immensly, was inspired by it, and came to his conclusions after much time spent observing it. Darwin was said to be a man who could sit and watch nature at length immersing himself for hours noticing detail and intricacy. I can relate…..
So yes Ken, Amen!
February 12th, 2009 at 11:06 am
Carl Safina had a very good essay on Darwin and evolution in the NY times earlier this week. It’s a good counter-melody to this post: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/10/science/10essa.html
February 12th, 2009 at 11:15 am
Amen Ken.
In my early years as an evangelical I separated secular science and evangelical faith based on the trumpet that was being blasted by a few voices. I grew bitter towards “liberals” and those looking to advance science void of a recognition of God’s hand at work. My fault was that this was done in a vacuum and void any true interaction with scientists, nor any real research and investigation on my end. I simply took the “party line” sort of speak.
As an Evangelical ministry leader, I say thanks be to God for voices like Darwin and Galileo who have pushed the Church to get outside of its box and explore the majesty of God’s creation, which still to this day is an inexplicable masterpiece.
I too join the voice of Pope John Paul 2 and say “I’m Sorry” to not seeing the man of Darwin and I also add in there today’s scientists who play an important role in the kingdom…I think.
February 12th, 2009 at 12:48 pm
Amen.
Thank you for stepping outside of the man-made box organized religion has put itself into. Jesus was the son of God who reached out to anyone and everyone, he didn’t point fingers and judge…
Is an apology to Darwin necessary? Not as necessary as looking outside of our own flaws and apologizing for those, hopefully changing actions in accordance with our discoveries.
February 12th, 2009 at 2:39 pm
I’m an evangelical–count me in!
February 12th, 2009 at 3:13 pm
Amen sir!
February 12th, 2009 at 3:32 pm
I’m a reluctant midwestern conservative evangelical any way you slice it – I’ve been “saved”, I love guitar driven “worship music”, I use masculine pronouns all the time without thinking about it, I think Rick Warren is basically a good guy and I’m on part-time pastoral staff at a protestant church.
I say reluctant because, among other things, we just can’t seem to recognize wisdom outside our own camp. Are we *that* insecure? Are we *that* afraid of people like Darwin and what has grown up in his wake? For our sake I hope not.
For what its worth I say Amen and toss my regret out there to Darwin, Carl, Steve, Richard, Bill Nye and anyone else who’s been on the receiving end of the Church’s fearful anger.
February 12th, 2009 at 4:00 pm
Okay I am writing all the way from Munich, Germany. Interestedly, I went to Dachue Concentration Camp today. Hmmm all the things that Christians have done in the name of Jesus is unbelievable and I am most certain Jesus would be ashame of the way His people treat others and one another. I for one, believe that Charles Darwin brought lots of insight on his theories of evolution and natural selection, but not so much in terms of natural science, but in social science. Darwin was not the first person who came up with the theory of evolution, he was just the one that carried it the furtherest. Darwin’s ideas on evolution has shaped many social theories in how cultures are formed and destroyed. So in that regard, I do not dismiss the works of this great man nor do I believe the church should coin him as a “social outcast” based on these theories. Heck, even Darwin denied his own theories of natural science evolution on his death bed, I think he made peace with God. I believe as Christians we should always always look for the good in others, love them, and honor them just as God would expect us to do.
February 12th, 2009 at 4:12 pm
I’m an evangelical, and I am sorry for the way we’ve treated scientists. Darwin especially…thanks for bringing it up, Ken!
February 12th, 2009 at 4:31 pm
Cassady, I’m pretty sure the bit about Darwin recanting his scientific opinions on his death bed is an urban legend. Either way, you’re absolutely right–let’s err on the side love. We can go a little overboard in that direction even.
February 12th, 2009 at 4:41 pm
I respect you guys immensely but respectfully disagree with this post. No hard feelings I hope. Be blessed!
February 12th, 2009 at 6:22 pm
Amen! I also agree with Chris that Carl Safina’s bit in the NY times is well worth reading – it’s time to usher out “Darwinism” and welcome in the science of evolution (while, of course, maintaining the perspective of love, humility, etc. per Ken’s suggestions).
February 12th, 2009 at 6:56 pm
I am sorry that we that claim Christ have let scientific debate keep us from loving others. When we should be turning the other cheek to those within the scientific world that think we have a mental disease, we have offered nothing but argument, debate, and indifference. Science is not perfect, and yet somehow we have expected scientists to have perfect theorems and understanding of a universe of which we are at best observers only. There are many things I don’t know, many things that are beyond my understanding. My relationship with Jesus is still a mystery to me. It is as real as my own thoughts, but somehow beyond them. I regret that someone as mysterious, loving, and beautiful as Jesus has been muddied in the waters of Christian indifference toward science.
February 12th, 2009 at 11:55 pm
Evangelicals have, for a long time, felt faced with a “hard choice between being intelligent according to the standards prevailing in their intellectual centers, and being religious according to the standards prevailing in their denominations.” (Sidney Mead, a historian of American Protestantism) Hopefully more discussion like this will help people realize that there isn’t any necessary contradiction between being religiously and scientifically informed.
February 13th, 2009 at 11:47 am
Amen!
I, too, am an evangelical pastor. And I, too, am sorry for the way Darwin was treated and the way my tribe treats his contribution to the larger story of God’s interaction with mankind.
For anyone to push against the prevailing norm of a group (let alone society’s powers) may create an internal dissonance that can lead to throwing away one set of the conflicting pressures. For Darwin to let go of his belief in a loving God while dealing with the deaths of three children is not surprising. To walk through that experience without overwhelming support and kindness from the organization that is supposed to be all about the Creator’s love, just thinking about his pain, makes my heart sick. The church is supposed to be expressing the heart of God to those both in and outside the camp.
My main role in our church setting is to create breathing room for single moms and their kids. Sadly, in our larger evangelical camp, single moms aren’t seen as the widows and orphans of our time and received with great tenderness and love, but rather, are often treated with judgement and a cold shoulder. How that must grieve the heart of God. We must do better in representing God’s amazing ability to embrace many different points of view, hold them in tension and still love abundantly. It may cost us something to remain open to possibilities beyond our current worldview, but isn’t that better than repenting later, in tears, when we discover how our much we’ve hurt those that God is trying to reach out to? John the baptist had it right~ I must decrease and He must increase. Even so, come Lord Jesus!
February 13th, 2009 at 12:26 pm
how can i disagree with an apology… i wholeheartedly apologize for myself, and other evangelicals, to anyone including darwin that as garrett said nicely, has been on the receiving end of the church’s fearful anger. love compels us to embrace and try to understand people who don’t share in our beliefs in this world.
February 13th, 2009 at 12:41 pm
I’m an evangelical missionary and I’m with you!
February 13th, 2009 at 10:50 pm
Just released were results of a Gallup poll looking at “belief in” evolution – only 4 in 10 Americans responded positively, and the best predictor of lack of belief was church attendance. Only 24% of weekly church-goers belief in evolution, while over 40% do not. I guess you’ve got a lot of work to do, Ken.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/114544/Darwin-Birthday-Believe-Evolution.aspx
On a side note, what a horrible choice of words. Framing the question around belief seems like it reinforces the misconception that its ‘only a theory,’ rather than the most important biological concept ever conceived, with 150 years of solid scientific evidence backing it up. More appropriate would have been, “Do you accept that evolution is true/scientifically accurate.”
February 14th, 2009 at 12:21 am
Clay, Not surprising. Of course, as a pastor, it’s not my task to convince anyone to accept evolutionary science. But it is my task to make sure those who do are not met with hostility or treated as misguided, and kept away from the treasure buried in the field as a result. That has to stop. Yes, belief is a strange word to apply to one’s acceptance or not of such a thing. I believe in Jesus. I believe in my wife’s love for me. I don’t believe in quantum mechanics, though it makes perfect sense to me. (If I could only understand it, that is!)
February 14th, 2009 at 9:07 am
i’m an evangelical leader on the east coast and i concur.
February 14th, 2009 at 9:14 am
Agreed
February 14th, 2009 at 11:06 am
I’m very encouraged by the response to this post. It’s gotten more hits in a shorter time, and more comments than any previous post, I think. I’m surprised pleasantly at the lack of angry comments. Actually just one that I didn’t post. So far. I think it’s important that anyone who considers themselves to be evangelical (despite the negative associations with that good word–a word having to do with the proclamation of the gospel)….I think it’s important for them to speak up on this issue if you agree that we’ve taken the wrong course as a movement with respect to Darwin. It may not mean that you accept evolutionary science. I’m guessing a number of left supportive comments here don’t. But the real question, and the source my admitted passion on this issues cuts to the core of what it MEANS to be evangelical. Do we we have a heart, a heart of gold, like Billy Graham’s say, or better, like Jesus, so see prodigals return? To see older brother soften their heart and come into the party?
Are we more interested in being RIGHT in an argument or full of love? Are we fed up putting millstones around the necks of little ones who might otherwise beleive but for the obstacles we place in their path? Are we the peacemakers of the earth or the culture warriors. Are we fed up with the hostility that is projected from among us to those on the outside of faith looking in? Have we wept over that state of our movement–how we’ve traded in our heart for the exile for the bowl of porridge that is the culture war we’re waging against them? Please, if you know any evangelicals of like mind, ask them to leave a comment of support. Those with the biggest media megaphones have had lots of opportunity to share their views on this topic–to assume the worst about Charles Darwin and those who think he was a man of integrity pursuing the truth about the world.
Thanks. I don’t know how this thing got imbedded within me, but it’s there.
February 14th, 2009 at 11:29 am
Count me in. Once again, Ken, you’ve hit the nail squarely on the head thanks to your compassion and sharp insight. Let’s not repeat the Galileo fiasco.
February 14th, 2009 at 12:00 pm
Count me in – another evangelical pastor.
February 14th, 2009 at 12:09 pm
As I’ve said previously, I am not an evangelical. This is more a political category than it is a religious or theological characterization. But I do attend a church that does characterize itself that way. I do so because I can’t find one I like that doesn’t. Amen.
February 14th, 2009 at 12:21 pm
Evangelicals, Note what Notbell says in his comment above: he goes to an evangelical church, but he doesn’t want to describe himself as an evangelical because he thinks that is a POLITICAL category. Has American evangelicalism given him reason to think that? Or is he deluded? Do you think it was easier for Notbell to darken the door of an evangelical church because he views “evangelical” as a political category? WE’ve got work to do evangelicals, if we want to be evangelical.
February 14th, 2009 at 1:18 pm
what quite amazes me is the humanity we can see in darwin and all of us, if we dare look for it. forgive us.
we have become prideful pariah’s of seditious certitude rather than humble harbingers of divine mystery. i once read that it is the true role of biblical and theological endeavour/science not to reduce, much less destroy, the divine mystery in human life and beyond, but to locate it. the mysterious presence of God among us cannot be fully analyzed or controlled by human reason and faculties, even though those are worthwhile endeavours…it is the fruit that is borne that readily reveals the authenticity of that presence, fruit like humility…like love and joy and peace and kindness.
thus, in nurturing awkward hurt feelings from the followers of darwin (who possibly go further than he did himself)…in nurturing these feeling against such a one as the respectable doctor charles darwin, and using him as a cypher and foil, do we even contemplate that in naming what we are not (darwinists) we may create a sense of identity against this other, yet do we ever go further in our understanding and questions to engage our discernment with the Life of God witin our collective being to ask: is this identity we are creating closer to who we are in Christ or further away and not ‘in His likeness’?
Forgive us Father, for we know not what we do…
amen and again i say: so be it
February 14th, 2009 at 1:39 pm
I’m an evangelical pastor. I hear Ken asking for a witness, so I’ll give the shout-out: Amen. I think many sections of the Church have wrongfully treated Darwin and failed to follow Jesus’ exhortations to treat those who seem to be our enemy the same way we’d want them to treat us. As someone whose early faith was steeped in fundamentalism, I don’t say this lightly, even though I don’t have all this sorted out yet. One step closer …
February 14th, 2009 at 1:47 pm
Amen!
Whatever new insights Charles Darwin gained as he probed the world of measurable facts can be nothings but helpful to our understanding of the world around us—over which Jesus is Lord.
If we evagelicals feel threatened by Charles Darwin’s work, it’s only because our hearts are distracted by our “evangelical ideology” instead of being rooted and gounded in the True Vine, who is Jesus, himself.
Too many real battles to wage, without being side-tracked into a war against evolution.
February 14th, 2009 at 1:49 pm
Amen!
Whatever new insights Charles Darwin gained as he probed the world of measurable facts can be nothings but helpful to our understanding of the world around us—over which Jesus is Lord.
If we evagelicals feel threatened by Charles Darwin’s work, it’s only because our hearts are distracted by our “evangelical ideology” instead of being rooted and gounded in the True Vine, who is Jesus, himself.
February 14th, 2009 at 2:10 pm
Bring it on evangelicals! Think about all those scientists who have kept their distance from Jesus because of all this trademark infringement we’ve been perpetrating! Our silence is complicity. Speak up and pass it on to your friends!
February 14th, 2009 at 2:14 pm
Amen
February 14th, 2009 at 2:39 pm
I have no idea if I’m an evangelical, despite Ken’s definition. Moreover, I attend a Presbyterian church but I wouldn’t call myself Presbyterian. But I love Jesus with all my heart, and place my complete trust in the Scriptures as God’s revealed inerrant truth. I also think that evolution is at some level true, and this puts me at odds with many of my fellow Christians. As a result I avoid the topic with most of them to avoid conflict. Thanks for writing this piece, and keep up the good work.
February 14th, 2009 at 3:31 pm
When Rickie Lee Jones released “The Sermon on Exposition Boulevard” (Feb. 2007), I was criticized, not by the secular press, but by Christian reviews, for exploring Christ’s words in a “secular setting.” The tug of war that goes on between intellectual ideas and the message of the Bible continues, even as it raged during Darwin’s time, with the result that Darwin became the patron saint of atheists, not fair to Darwin, who wrestled with this faith, and after leaving the Anglican church (he once considered becoming a clergyman) following the death of his ten year old daughter, described himself as an agnostic.
When he published “Origin of the Species,” the American biologist Asa Gray wrote him to say that his work demonstrated God’s ingenious design that ensured unity and diversity. Gray praised Darwin for deepening our understanding of divine teleology. Darwin wrote Gray back, praising him for seeing a point that no one else seemed to notice.
In later editions of Darwin’s book, Darwin included quotes by Charles Kingsley, describing his theory as being compatible with religious belief. For some reason, these passages are rarely mentioned when “Origin of the Species” is cited.
Lee Cantelon
Hollywood
February 14th, 2009 at 4:26 pm
Amen! Science should be the church’s long lost sibling. We’re not whole until this heals. I’m an evangelical in college ministry working at the University of Michigan.
February 14th, 2009 at 4:51 pm
count me in!!! great post ken (:
February 14th, 2009 at 4:53 pm
I think the most amazing thing I’ve read here is that Ken thinks quantum mechanics “makes perfect sense.”
February 14th, 2009 at 6:06 pm
Lee Cantelon knows his Jesus and his Darwin. See his/His work at http://thewordz.com/.
February 14th, 2009 at 7:08 pm
This evangelical, doctor, and scientist says “Amen.” Thanks Ken.
February 14th, 2009 at 8:10 pm
I’m with you 100% on this! I’m an Evangelical that up until recently would NEVER use the term ‘evangelical’ to describe myself. I didn’t want to be associated with all the political hate mongers that have tainted the message of Christ.
But through listening to Ken, and watching his actions, I realized that there’s a better solution: Change what the term ‘Evangelical’ is associated with! Those of us that are evangelicals should stand up and admit it. Let our actions speak for themselves. I strive to portray Christ in all I do (even though I’m human, and I frequently miss the mark) and part of that is to not only respect, but support the scientific community’s contributions to our understanding of creation.
Jesus himself spent huge amounts of time in nature in order to spend time with the Father. Spending time in solitude, observing the natural world, was how he spent communion with God and how he found rest. So my guess is that Darwin has an awful lot more in common with Christ than most of us (including myself). Maybe he was closer to God than we ‘christians’ (and even he) was willing to admit.
On behalf of ‘Evanglicals’ I apologize to the scientific community for all the ways we have persecuted you and your incredible work.
I also apologize to Jesus for shunning the things he himself taught, modeled, and commanded.
We have totally missed incredible opportunities for deeper communion and intimacy with God for the sake of the ‘religion’ we created. I sincerely hope that as we acknowledge our mistakes and shortcomings we will follow it up with action. It’s not enough to say ‘we were wrong’, now it’s time to change.
February 14th, 2009 at 8:52 pm
Evangelical Pastors please note: You are either making room for the likes of Sarah, and with her, enormous gifts and energy, or you losing Sarah. And her friends. How evangelical do you want to be?
February 14th, 2009 at 10:06 pm
amen.
what a thoughtful and refreshing post in addition to all the comments after ~
February 14th, 2009 at 10:59 pm
I’m an evangelical – I want to spread the good news of Jesus Christ.
I’m not an Evangelical – I don’t blindly subscribe a certain political ideology.
By writing this, I’m not saying “Darwin got it right” – but what I do believe is that if he were alive today, Charles would weep. He would weep for all the hate and pain surrounding the culture war fought in, and against, his name. And I would want to hold him. Comfort him. Apologize to him. Love him as Jesus does.
February 15th, 2009 at 2:27 am
Ken says, “I’m surprised pleasantly at the lack of angry comments.” Well, with the forceful words presented in the blog entry, it was made clear they weren’t welcome. I have trouble with the way this entry was posed. While I know your point was evangelical closed-mindedness and harshness, I feel like the blog was worded to exclude people who genuinely are troubled by the great harm Darwin’s ideas have caused to society. I can agree that Darwin was not out to cause great harm to society and in fact was concerned by the effect his ideas would have; he was merely reporting what made sense to him in his studies. But I find the anniversary of Darwin’s birthday to be a solemn day, not a day of celebration.
I can agree with you and the commenters to the point that there have been many unnecessarily harsh words hurled at the scientific community by evangelicals, and attitudes like that are not Christ-like. But in your heady celebration of Darwin’s birthday, and your promotion of the acceptance of evolutionary theory among evangelicals, do not go to the other extreme and make those who are disturbed by the societal effects of Darwin’s theories and who find the theory itself to be scientifically weak to be the new outsiders.
February 15th, 2009 at 6:49 am
JLee, My post was not intended to exclude comments from those who disagree with me. I was simply saying that I wouldn’t post comments that bashed Darwin as there has been plenty of that already. Pretty easy to find on the web on Christian sites. As to the negative impact of Darwins ideas on society as you suggest, I think much responsibility for that is on the unwillingness of the church (with the exception of the earliest responders to Darwin like Gray and B.B. Warfield, etc) which didn’t take the time to understand what he was and was not saying, to consider the evidence dispassionately and then do the work of reading Genesis afresh. IN much the same way that the church took much to long respond to Galileo’s evidence that the earth revolved around the sun, not vice versa. IN that case, it took longer than a couple of centuries before it was understood that the Bible was not attempting to teach a scientific view when it seem to assert otherwise. This work of reading the Bible in light of what God given reason can inform us about the world is exactly what B.B. Warfield, the father of biblical inerrancy began to do. We should take his lead, is what I’m saying.
February 15th, 2009 at 9:41 am
As an Evangelical Pastor (of a church adjacent the The Ohio State University) I not only agree with you regarding our collective need for an apology to Charles Darwin, but I personally repent of the years I spent in the toxic stupor of culture warfare as a card carrying fundamentalist (who defined my faith by who I thought were enemies of my faith). I wish I spent more time understanding Darwin as well as understanding Jesus. I was so caught up in “refuting” Darwin (as much as a Christian High Schooler Could) because I thought it demonstrated a zeal for Jesus. In reality I should have spent more time looking at the stories of Jesus and refuting MY OWN lack of love. At 37 I think I’m beginning to get the “whole love Jesus, love others” thing!
I was just thinking of an Idea for a bumper-sticker: “Jesus Loves Darwin.”
February 15th, 2009 at 1:45 pm
I really appreciated this post, Ken. I’m a member of an Evangelical Church and AMEN!
February 15th, 2009 at 3:11 pm
As an American evangelical, I must admit that I was surprised to (almost literally) stumble across Charles Darwin’s final resting place in Westminster Abbey. It made me do a little research and I found that at Charles Darwin’s memorial sermon, the Bishop of Carlisle preached the following:
“It would have been unfortunate if anything had occurred to give weight and currency to the foolish notion which some have diligently propagated, but for which Mr Darwin was not responsible, that there is a necessary conflict between a knowledge of Nature and a belief in God…” (http://www.westminster-abbey.org/history-research/monuments-gravestones/people/12159)
Unfortunate indeed!
February 15th, 2009 at 5:34 pm
Thank goodness for a sane voice speaking truth in the midst of our cultural distortion. Yes, I’m an evangelical, albeit of the Episcopalian kind; and I rejoice that, even without a Pope to do it for us, there’s a net on which to have a people’s conversation and a pastoral voice to lead us in a productive and enabling nostra culpa….pt
February 15th, 2009 at 5:39 pm
I seems to me that God gave us minds and inquisitivness to try to see and understand the amazing beauty and intricacy of his creation. I think the deeper you delve the more you appreciate his awesome plan. I applaude those who seek to understand God’s creation. An evangelical board member.
February 15th, 2009 at 7:09 pm
As an evangelical ecologist (no this is not an oxymoron) I’m proud to see this conversation in the public domain. I suppose an apology is as good a place to start as any, but lets make sure its sincere not one of those muttered under your breath OK maybe I might have messed up a little kind of things we threw our parents as teenagers.
AMEN
February 15th, 2009 at 8:36 pm
Kudos to you, Ken for reminding us all that there is more to the story for both science and soul. May we evangelicals navigate these waters more sanely in the years ahead. With God’s grace, we can do exactly that.
February 15th, 2009 at 8:39 pm
“God said…and so it was.” Lord have mercy on us for making our understanding of the process, timing, or mechanisms of … be the litmus test or prerequisite of faith!
February 15th, 2009 at 10:01 pm
Thank you Ken for starting the apology chain! As another evangelical pastor serving the Ann Arbor area, I too apologize to all who have been hurt by the individual or corporate Church because of Darwin and his ideas. I am truly very very sorry and am thankful for an opportunity to be a better listener.
February 15th, 2009 at 10:22 pm
Nicely done, Ken. Anything that can be done to erode the centuries of distrust between scientists and evangelicals is most welcome, and very much appreciated. Keep up the good work.
February 16th, 2009 at 1:04 am
Maybe the term should be ‘American’ Evangelicals.
Growing up in Brazil, the idea of a dichotomy between a belief in the Bible and a belief in science or the theory of evolution was foreign to me. I loved both.
It wasn’t until I was exposed to American Christianity that the question came up.
Even recently, when I explained to my father (the son of a Presbyterian minister in Brazil) that Ken’s sermons on the issue of evolution vs. creation were creating some controversy in church, his response was: ‘well, that’s plain stupidity, these folks (creationists) need to learn how to read the Bible.’
Needless to say, dad is not the most diplomatic person in the world, but to him (and me), this rift between creationists and evolutionists doesn’t register. It makes as much sense to me as some of the old Jewish laws, like not mixing different types of threads would make sense to your average modern person today.
Through this whole culture war, however, I have made an interesting ‘movement’ in my belief system.
Some of the arguments against traditional evolution assumptions have resonated with me, like the lack of transitional fossils and the limitations of carbon dating have done a lot to open my mind to the possibility that the some of creationists’ claims seem valid, not to mention that there are quite a few very respectable scientists who do question today’s mainstream’s seeming blind devotion to Darwin, as if he somehow is infallible.
So as far as the culture war aspect, I am in the middle, seeing good points in both sides of the controversy, but I fail to see the issue in spiritual terms. I think that is a North American phenomenom, much like the the old prohibitions against drinking, smoking, dancing and movies.
February 16th, 2009 at 1:10 am
Amen. Apologies to Darwin and the entire scientific community. I’m not saying science always gets it right, but I respect, admire and applaud the desire for knowledge. I, personally, love learning about science and scientific endeavors.
I want to chime in with Sarah that I’m an evangelical that would have never described myself that way until recently. My recent positive experience in an evangelical community has redefined that word for me. I wasn’t one who was afraid of being labeled evangelical; I was one who accepted the social label as accurate. My community and my God have taught me otherwise.
I agree with Dave that science should be considered the church’s sibling. I felt Francis Collins expressed eloquently what I feel about the exploration of science and God fit together (though I’m paraphrasing) in that science is about understanding the how and church is about understanding the why.
If God is the creator of all things, can’t he also be the creator of science? Or, at the very least, can’t science be the lens or the language through which we understand the God of nature? I really have never understood how belief in God and belief in science should or even could be mutually exclusive.
February 16th, 2009 at 4:54 am
as an evangelical worship leader, i have to say
amen!
February 16th, 2009 at 11:56 am
I’m writing from El Paso, TX, what some would consider the “buckle” of the Bible Belt. And I say, long live Darwin.
February 16th, 2009 at 12:02 pm
Although I am not a believer in MACROevolution, I do feel sad that so many are turned away from faith in Jesus because of “christian” attitudes.
Here is how I would describe myself:
Old Earth microevolutionary Big Bang Creationist
here is my bias:
My undergrad degree is in Biology and I like Dr. Hugh Ross, for more of his ideas go to http://www.reasons.org.
February 16th, 2009 at 12:14 pm
Amen Ken, with apologies to so many who have been pushed out of the kingdom of God by fearful Christians, i offer this as well…
“Now it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. … how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason?”
Augustine, The literal meaning of Genesis
February 16th, 2009 at 12:29 pm
amen! I’m with you. I do not believe there is an inherent conflict between natural inquiry and belief in God.
Is it controversial to say that I think Jesus inspired Darwin’s curiosity to study the species of the earth? : )
Also, I have been enjoying Leon Kass’ discussion of modern science as it relates to Genesis in his book The Beginning of Wisdom.
February 16th, 2009 at 1:27 pm
I’m sorry too, Darwin!
I left the Evangelical fold largely because it is a sub-culture that uses fear to enforce a pride-filled certainty about matters it doesn’t understand as well or as honestly as it purports to. Scientists can restore a sense of awe and wonder at the complex (and messy) beauty of the physical world which the church has been busy shutting down for centuries.
Those who are true seekers outside the church often model an integrity sadly lacking inside the church.
Here’s to the end of fear and the beginning of love.
February 16th, 2009 at 2:04 pm
I have a few questions for all of you:
Why do the creationists keep on arguing? Are they insecure in their faith? Does simple logic and science scare them?
The SCIENTIFIC THEORY of evolution shows us that God’s creation is far more marvellous and wonderful than the simplistic HYPOTHESIS that is in the first few chapters of Genesis. Everywhere in God’s universe, creation never ended and continues to this very day. There never was a “seventh day of rest” for the Almighty. Evolution shows us that God is far more skillful, ingenius, and inventive than any of his followers could have possibly imagined.
February 16th, 2009 at 2:10 pm
ex-christian, I think you’re making the same mistake that many evangelicals do when reading Genesis 1, that is reading it as though it were meant to be in the language and the mental construct of modern science. So genesis 1 is not presented as a scientific hypothesis. It’s a different genre of writing with its own groundrules like every other genre. Young earthers make the same mistakes, hence they refer to “creation science”. The Bible is not written in the framework of modern science since the framework didn’t exist when the bible is written. God,the Bible speaks in the thought forms of the day, not centuries hence. Unfortunately we won’t be able to keep this dialogue going on this post, as I’m reserving for evangelicals who want to say “amen” to my post and secular scientist who want to respond to my inquiry. Doing something a little different with this post, in others. We can pick up the conversation later.
February 16th, 2009 at 3:36 pm
I don’t know what an evangelical is, and I don’t care, but I think I go to an evangelical church and this thing about Darwin makes sense to me. When kids in my bio class deny evolution because they go to church it makes no sense to me.
February 16th, 2009 at 5:16 pm
Amen, I have two degrees from the University of Michigan and having found and consequently fallen in hopeless love with Jesus in between the two, I have a profound sense of respect and admiration for Darwin´s work. He has helped me to see God´s wonderful craftsmanship all the more clearly. God the tireless creator, the great sculptor. I am reminded of Jeremiah´s encounter with the POTTER. Breathtaking. As an artist and architect myself, I love to watch the variation and possibilities unfold with each creative input. AMAZING are HIS works. Living breath he has placed in us, for the chance of us recognizing him through all that is made, and maybe, even loving him in return.
February 16th, 2009 at 8:04 pm
Amen. I am truly sorry. Thank You Ken, for that incredible article/
February 16th, 2009 at 8:30 pm
How often has the evangelical line on science been a stumbling block to faith among scientists? Why do the faith filled fear the insights of science? I love Jesus and am excited about science. Since becoming a believer at age 17 almost 40 years ago,for me, science and faith have always shed light on one another. I join those expressing deep apology for the damage the faith filled have inflicted on the science community. It is time for us to say,” Welcome, come let us learn and reason together.” Thank you Ken!
February 16th, 2009 at 10:02 pm
Amen! Since reading this the other day have been stuck humming C.F. Alexander’s “All Things Bright and Beautiful” written maybe a decade before Origin of Species and wonder if Darwin ever hummed it. These first couple of verses plus the last might help us appreciate the plan God had for Darwin:
“All things bright and beautiful,
All creatures great and small,
All things wise and wonderful:
The Lord God made them all.
Each little flower that opens,
Each little bird that sings,
He made their glowing colors,
He made their tiny wings.
He gave us eyes to see them,
And lips that we might tell
How great is God Almighty,
Who has made all things well.”
So maybe Darwin has gone and used his eyes and lips (and pen) to tell us, “how great is God Almighty!”
February 16th, 2009 at 11:05 pm
Thanks for yet another refreshing post, Ken. I’m a Christian and a professor in a scientific field, so this is all very relevant for me. I always felt poor Mr Darwin is constantly dragged into all kinds of arguments that are beyond his work, by both zealous scientists and religious folk. Maybe we can just appreciate his excellent framework for understanding the interdependency and connectedness of all life (laying a basis for modern genetics) without trying to apply it to questions beyond its scope. Then we can all try to tackle the incredible question of what life is with sharp minds and open hearts.
February 17th, 2009 at 12:15 am
I’m an evangelical pastor and I agree with J Lee Harshbarger (2/15 post). Somehow I managed to grow up in very conservative churches without developing the hatred toward Darwin everyone here believes is so common in the evangelical church. Sure, I admit to not being persuaded by his theory, and believing that others have used his work in very destructive ways…but somehow I’ve been able to disagree without having any hatred for the man. That describes most people I know. In fact, I agree with Ken’s comments and have great compassion for Darwin’s broken heart.
Please share with me where I can go to observe the hatred toward Darwin that you all have observed. Disagreement I’ve seen. Strong disagreement I’ve seen. But I haven’t seen this hatred you reference. I’m willing to observe it if you’ll point me to where.
February 17th, 2009 at 1:51 am
Amen, Ken. I’m an evangelical in agreement with you.
I do think J Lee raises an intersting point though. I think the damage he was referring to was wrought not by culture war but rather by social Darwinism. You’ve noted before the irony that in terms of social justice issues many conservative, anti-darwin Christians talk like social Darwinists. But if we accept that God uses evolution to accomplish His purposes biologically, it begs the question: Why not socially?
There are good answers to this, but they get obscured by the “cheap” answers that simply try to ignore Darwin’s accomplishments.
February 17th, 2009 at 8:04 am
brian, I’m holding back a comment which I think is representative of what you haven’t been exposed to, bless God and will offer other examples in a future post. Not going to spread the bad stuff at during the man’s birthday. However, my post wasn’t asserting hatred of Darwin as the problem but that his name has been maligned (e.g. being called dangerous and his scientific ideas heretical) and that many haven’t taken the time to try to understand those ideas. The standard set by Jesus isn’t the absence of hatred but the presence of love (doing to others what we would have them do unto us.)
February 17th, 2009 at 8:11 am
Count me in.
February 17th, 2009 at 9:59 am
Ken, your insight and willingness to push the church forward is refreshing. I’m an evangelical and I approve this message. Amen!
February 17th, 2009 at 11:32 am
I’m an evangelical pastor, and I apologize to the late Mr. Darwin. Not to mention apologies to several friends that I slowed on their way to Christ by putting a stumbling block of anti-Darwinian rhetoric in their path…
February 17th, 2009 at 11:43 am
Invite to comment on Brian B’s comment no. 75. I did not grow up in a conservative evangelical home. If there are evangelicals who wish to comment on what they specifically are adding their “amen” to this apology to Darwin’s memory for please post any specifics that you experience or did yourself. Good for the soul! Again, I’m not talking about hatred. Conservative evangelicals are much kinder and warmer hearted than the media stereotypes. Brian’s experience is no doubt repeated in other settings. I think often the negative things said or believed about Darwin are matter of ignorance or bias not hatred. And of course, Darwin was mistaken on a number of things, which have been acknowledged by the scientific community at large. That’s the nature of science to be self correcting as it’s meant to be the nature of Christianity. Reformed and always reforming.
February 17th, 2009 at 11:58 am
Well articulated, Ken. I am an evangelical and I agree.
February 17th, 2009 at 12:32 pm
I agree that we should apologize for any slander to the name of Darwin we have done. I don’t think anyone should apologize for believing in a literal creation that doesn’t involve evolution.
It seems the waters are muddied on this. They are two different issues.
I have been a fairly competent software engineer/architect for almost 20 years designing, implementing, debugging, and optimizing complex systems. From an engineering perspective creation makes much more sense to me than evolution. I don’t have a biology degree so I can’t discuss biology, but I’ve got a friend with a biology PhD who can intelligently discuss the scientific reasons for creation and against evolution. A microbiologist friend of a former co-worker came to take embrace creationism through his study of microbiology. Point being that there are intelligent, analytical, thinking people that embrace creationism.
My only reason in posting this is that I see so many people REACTING to the awful things done in the name of Jesus and that a lot of Fundmentalism has done and throwing the baby out with the bath water instead of sifting through everything and rightly analyzing what is wrong and what isn’t.
I don’t think we should trash Darwin’s name. I also don’t think we should trash intelligent people who just don’t buy into evolution. And I’m seeing a lot of people who claim to follow Jesus trashing people who still hold to creationism. Seems kinda hypocritical to me.
Is it valid for people to have real wounds and anger about what a lot of Fundamentalists have done over the years? Yes it is. But don’t REACT in your hurt and anger. I can say this with confidence because I bear a lot of those wounds myself. But if you’re going to slam fundamentalists for not following Jesus and being judgmental and condemning and hurtful, then be sure you deal with your hurt and anger before God and by the blood of Christ before you start inflicting harm of your own.
It’s anti-Christ to slander people. It’s not anti-Christ to not accept evolution and to embrace creationism (and it’s not anti-intelligent either…).
Fundamentalists get bashed for lumping too many things into the same category and calling it bad. I’ll agree that happens all the time. It’s also happening a lot coming from people who bash the fundamentalists.
This is coming from a guy who now not only has increasing wounds from fundamentalism to deal with but also new wounds from fellow wounded soldiers who lump me in with those who should be shot down simply because I hold to creationism.
IF YOU REALLY MEAN YOU WANT TO FOLLOW JESUS AND NOT INFLICT WOUNDS ON PEOPLE TAKE A LOOK AT WHAT YOU ARE DOING. IF YOU THINK I’M OVER-REACTING, TAKE AN OBJECTIVE LOOK AT WHAT IS REALLY GOING ON.
I don’t mind taking flack from atheists who make fun of me for being a creationist and for trusting in an “invisible wizard in the sky”. I expect that. But it really hurts — and it hurts deep — when I hear fellow Christians saying things that makes it clear that I’m more of an enemy than a brother to them.
So let’s take a step back and re-evaluate what’s really been done wrong in the name of Christ and turn from what’s really wrong. If you don’t want to repeat what ignorant, blind faith, religious people do, then we should all do a little more logical analysis of the situation and throw out what is bad, but cling to what is good. And if something is uncertain, let it brew a little longer before making a judgment.
So, Darwin, I’m sorry that many people have in the name of Christ slandered your name and I know I’ve done it previously. I do think some of your natural selection stuff is cool and logical. But I can’t apologize for thinking that the whole evolution thing just doesn’t fit into what some of my friends and I see in the natural world and what we observe in the midst of our scientific-like occupations.
February 17th, 2009 at 12:42 pm
NOTE to moderator on my previous comment: If you are considering not posting my comment because of it’s length, let me know and I’ll create a page on my site and I can put a link to it. If you are considering not posting it because of content, I just ask that we can have an honest dialog about it. I really think it is on-topic and is an important contribution to on-going Christians-reconciling-with-the-world-they-have-hurt process.
Thanks,
Mike
February 17th, 2009 at 12:49 pm
Mike, thanks for a thoughtful post. Would that all of us had your humility, especially expressed in the first sentence of your last paragraph, as well as your tone throughout. Please see my post. #22. As a evangelical pastor it is not my job or objective to convince anyone of that the evidence supports natural selection as a means of creation. However it is my job to make sure that there are not hindrances to the gospel in the way we present the gospel. And the response of MANY evangelicals to those who accept evolutionary science [not any metaphysical assumptions that be passed along with it uncritically--but scientists are lousy philosophers and theologians generally]…constitute an obstacle to the gospel. WE MUST make room the church for those who accept science on this issue. That’s my intention. It means that people like yourself who hold a different view must make room for them. Those on the inside of faith, those already at the banquet, have an obligation to make room for those outside, for those not seated. In our church we have people all over the spectrum on this issue. The culture at large is all over the map. That’s fine. It’s a debatable issue from a religious point of view, i.e. not something that we have to agree on to be fellow jesus followers. Of course from a scientific point of view there are those who say it’s not debatable. Properly that’s a scientific argument and not theological one. I work with many who are in reaction to fundamentalism and I agree wholeheartedly with your view that it’s quite possible to be reactionary. I’d say it’s inevitable as psychological response, but something to pass through rather than park in. I wasn’t raised in a conservative evangelical or fundamentalist home so it’s not so much something I’ve had to struggle with on the issue of science.
February 17th, 2009 at 12:50 pm
As a Christ-follower and former Columbus Vineyardite that now studies Darwin for a “living,” and as someone who loves and agrees with many people who have commented to this post, I still have to play devil’s advocate. Note that I do this not because I disagree with the spirit of what Ken has posted here–I am definitely on the “apologize to Darwin” bandwagon–but because I think we tend to overlook what it was that people were so upset about to begin with. In other words, I think we need to put a little more teeth into the Darwinian challenge and *then* figure out why and how it is that we should, as Christians, deal with it.
In the 1830s, some of the smartest scientists–not just Anglican priests–were Natural Theologians. It was the “liberal” thing to be back in the day. And the pre-eminent philosopher of such things, William Whewell wrote in his contribution to the Bridgewater Treatises (Astronomy and General Physics (1852), 4): “If there be, in the administration of the universe, intelligence and benevolence, superintendence and foresight, grounds for love and hope, such qualities may be expected to appear in the constitution and combination of those fundamental regulations by which the course of nature is brought about and made to be what it is.” In other words, if God is who the Bible says that he is, the world should reflect it.
Darwin–probably because of the death of Annie–responded directly to Whewell’s natural theology with his closing lines from the Origin (p. 528): “Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows.” In other words, it is not due to divine goodness but “famine and death” that the world looks like what it looks like.
So, again as someone that “believes in” Darwin as well as the Bible, I think we need to take seriously this issue: is God’s goodness/wisdom/power evident in creation, or is it just death/waste/pain?
I’m sure the answer is “yes” here; but we need to take seriously–theologically and philosophically seriously–what that means.
All that being said, thank you Ken for posting this!
February 17th, 2009 at 12:52 pm
Mike, I posted your comment because I thought it was valuable. I appreciated that you didn’t bash Darwin on his birthday (or else I wouldn’t have posted it) and I appreciate that you expressed solidarity with my effort at expressing regret for the way evangelicals have treated the memory of Darwin. God is at work, I think.
February 17th, 2009 at 1:00 pm
e, another great comment! yes, I think it’s wrong for beleivers to expect Darwin, who was not an ardent follower of Jesus or a theologian to have had the depth to integrate his scientific findings with Scripture. He was dealing with a time-bound interpretation of Scripture in his day. That’s our job and the fact that we haven’t done it means that we should be kind to Darwin if he didn’t do it himself. How many of us would have had the capacity to spend 8 years of our lives studying barnacles just to confirm our hunch about natural selection AND integrate these insights into Christian faith? Now, however, we evangelicals, FOR THE SAKE OF THE GOSPEL, need to spend a little more time understanding science so that we make up for lost time. We will be held accountable for this.
February 17th, 2009 at 1:12 pm
Thanks, Ken. I do agree that we shouldn’t let creation/evolution be a “condition” of the gospel or a hindrance to people coming to know Christ. I also think that it’s just as important that Christ’s followers don’t trash one another in an attempt to distance themselves from the wrong’s done in Christ’s name. Didn’t someone once say that the unity of Christ’s follower’s would convince the world that He really was sent by God?
Thanks for your post and for your heart. This is a good discussion.
February 17th, 2009 at 2:38 pm
When the church acknowledged that the world wasn’t flat, Jesus still reigned. When the church acknowledged that the earth revolved around the sun, Jesus was still seated at the right hand of the Father. So acknowledging that Charles Darwin got a bad, knee-jerk rap by the church doesn’t compromise my faith in the least. Whether you reject the theory, or embrace it in total or in some part, the least we owe CD (and the scientific community) is an open mind and an apology.
I’m a follower of Jesus and I’m sorry, Chuck.
February 17th, 2009 at 3:11 pm
Since I’ve never said or done a single thing against Darwin in my entire life, I do not apologize to him.
What are you trying to do on this page, Ken? Are you trying to manipulate the feelings of christians by inviting them to apologize to a dead man? Do you think the dead man is reading people’s comments, or listening to their thoughts as they apologize to him? Are these apologies a means, a “first step”, to an unstated end? Is there any end, an eventual “last step”, that you may be hoping for in all of this?
February 17th, 2009 at 3:26 pm
amen! i’m an evangelical and i approve this message.
February 17th, 2009 at 4:19 pm
Do I have to apologize if I never had disdain for Darwin?
February 17th, 2009 at 4:38 pm
Joao, It all depends on whether there is such thing as corporate identity and responsibility. I hope there is as the work of the cross depends on it. The pope apologized on behalf of the catholic church for the church’s response to Galileo. I think it was a legitimate thing for him to do. Evangelicals have no pope. I suppose we could leave it to Billy Graham.
February 17th, 2009 at 4:45 pm
Mark of Post 91: You sound like a very rigtheous person in this regard. And on guard against nefarious apologies. This is perhaps why evangelical churches are crawling with biologists.
February 17th, 2009 at 5:25 pm
I appreciated J. Lee Harshbarger’s comment (#47) and his willingness to challenge the seemingly “Church=bad, Darwin=good” consensus on this thread. There is certainly no argument with the fact that Charles Darwin made quite a contribution to our understanding of the world. And the anniversary of his birth is noteworthy. But as Mr. Harshbarger rightly alluded to regarding Darwin’s theory, the desire to vindicate Darwin should not cause us to likewise overlook the points in world history where the social implications of his evolutionary ideas have resulted in racism, eugenics, genocide, etc. The question I raised over at The Daily Detour regarding Darwin’s theory was whether or not such atrocities were merely a perverted application of an otherwise sound theory or simply the logical outcome of that theory as it is applied in a social context? And the debate will rage on as to how one might answer that critical question.
As a former pastor, one cannot deny that much harm has been done by the Church when Christians have presented the Gospel of Christ in a way that is contrary to the very nature of the Gospel itself. And for that, apologies are certainly in order. (And I add mine as well to those outside the church who have been hurt by often well-intentioned, yet misguided, Christians.)
Sadly, in my experience, the deterioration of civil discourse in our culture has necessitated the need for apologies from advocates on all sides of this tension, both those within the creationist camp, as well as, those without. It seems we would all do well to approach the subject with greater humility and mutual respect.
I applaud your effort, Ken, to repair the Christian image. There is much work to be done there. I just hope that in doing so, we do not inadvertently overlook related aspects of this entire issue which may be less positive under the light of equitable scrutiny. And that when we engage on these important matters, we do so in a way that is fair-minded and respectful toward all.
February 17th, 2009 at 5:29 pm
The conflict between religion and science is a manmade division created to separate the righteous (in-group) and the unrighteous (everyone else). A litmus test for anti-intellectual orthodoxy.
I am an evangelical who wants to spread the good news, not some bad news.
Rock on, Ken.
February 17th, 2009 at 7:42 pm
Ken– I’m an evangelical with some fundamentalist roots, and I say: count me in. I appreciate your well-articulated posting. And what a great conversation going on here with all the comments!
February 17th, 2009 at 11:04 pm
Thanks, Ken! As an evangelical and an academic, I support respectful scientific debate and believe in its power to help us understand how complex and amazing God’s creation is.
February 17th, 2009 at 11:04 pm
An evangelical from New York City agrees. Amen!
February 17th, 2009 at 11:29 pm
Ken,
once again you have said a lot well. Your articulation of the issues invites others to join the conversation without feeling they need to concede their own views be they biblical, scientific or, as is most often the case, a combination of both. Our Friendship Collaborative here at OSU was a success due in large part to your ability to connect people from both worlds, evangelical and scientific. I look forward to seeing how your efforts there at UM turn out in the coming weeks and months.
Keep up the pace out in front of the pack, you are leading us all into important new territory fraught with many a danger but none greater than or equal to the hope we carry in these earthen vessels.
God Bless, Howard Van Cleave and those a part of the Faculty Christian Fellowship at OSU
February 17th, 2009 at 11:48 pm
I support and agree with this. Having read the original writings of Darwin in grad school in Comparative Studies at Ohio State and seeing his own allusions to God and faith helped me realise some of the extremism of mainstram cultural christianity….
Thanks Ken
February 18th, 2009 at 12:34 am
I am an evolutionary biologist. I can say that Ken’s note and the above comments/apologies are actually helpful, regardless of whether one feels they “personally” need to apologize or not. It is nice to see that at least some in the Christian community are not condemning the intellectual pursuit of evolutionary biology! I have a feeling, however, that you all are among the minority. I have heard and read numerous invectives by Christians about those who adhere to the theory of evolution by natural selection. Some Christians will flatly state that a belief in evolution immediately condemns one to hell! I now am guarded about telling people what I do (I usually just say I am a “biologist”) just to avoid any negative feedback. I must say that this is a sad state of affairs! Thus, to all of you who have “apologized” I say “thank you”!
I would also like to add that most of the people who don’t “believe” in evolution by natural selection really don’t know much about the theory (although they may ADAMANTLY believe Darwin was dead wrong!). The theory only requires 4 things: 1. genetically-based variation in form; 2. this variation in form must affect traits related to survival and/or reproduction; 3. not all variants can survive and reproduce; and 4. time. We know that these processes produce evolutionary change on the short term (what people sometimes call “microevolution”) because of literally hundreds of thousands of scientific experiments. There is every reason to “believe” (and solid scientific studies of the fossil records that show) that the processes working now can explain the changes we see in the fossil record (what some people call “macroevolution”). Anyone who has enough time to spend really delving into the scientific literature will most assuredly come away with the notion that the theory of evolution by natural selection has many more points in its favor than the detractors lead people to believe!
So, thanks Ken and all of you above that are reaching out to us “science folk” to tell us that you don’t see us as “evil-doers”. I can tell you that my colleagues and I sincerely appreciate your sentiments and hope that someday your feelings will be more widely held in our country!
February 18th, 2009 at 7:54 am
Mark (#91) — Chill dude. I understand where you are coming from in the concern that different people that claim to be followers of Christ do have hidden agendas. And while I have concerns of how something like this can be taken (see my comment #83), I really don’t get the impression that Ken has evil intentions. Just like me, I’m guessing Ken has things he’ll refine after this whole interaction, but I honestly don’t see a problem with apologizing for slander. Even if we don’t like what Darwin said and even if we believe it’s completely wrong, the way we Christians have ignorantly defamed his character is not right (once again, read my comment so you know where I’m coming from).
If you really think Ken has evil plans, pray about it for a while and then talk about it privately with him. Laying out an accusation (yeah, even though it was stated as a question it came out like an accusation) like that publicly was wrong and is really adding to people’s belief that Christian’s are quick to judge when they don’t know the facts — the whole reason I see Ken posting this in the first place.
I also don’t see anything wrong with corporately apologizing for a wrong even if you aren’t a main offender. I’ve apologized in front of a group of people for the many evils that people have done in the name of Christ mainly because, like Ken, I want to get the roadblocks out of the way so people will come to Christ. We Christians have done some nasty things. To pretend we haven’t is just not seeing things right. Jesus said, “You will know the truth and the truth will set you free.”
I’m sorry to be so confrontational about this and I hope somehow we can reconcile these differences. It needs to be said though because these are the kinds of attitudes that divide followers of Christ. It’s good to be on guard against false teaching and deception. It’s another thing to make quick judgments and accusations.
February 18th, 2009 at 8:00 am
Ken, thoughtful post, though since I haven’t heard your sermon series, it’s not clear to me why rehabilitating Darwin in the minds of evangelicals or proving to biologists that Christians aren’t leprous is an immediate priority.
I agree that the specifics of what Darwin wrote aren’t a problem for Christian belief. But the “Darwinists” who use “Darwin” as a synonym for anti-creator and, specifically, anti-Christian overreaching are a big problem.
So I offer a reasonably enthusiastic but somewhat limited “amen” to your post. But I wouldn’t be eligible to join in anyway, not being evangelical.
P.S. The Pope was exactly the right person to address the Galileo question specifically because he’s the current holder of the office that made the original mistake. Hey, if you want me to kiss your ring next time I see you, just say the word.
February 18th, 2009 at 11:17 am
I am both a believer and an ecologist. My early education was in a conservative Christian School where Darwin was land-blasted for ‘crack-pot’ theories and I was convinced, as many are, that being passionate about Christ was synonymous with condemning ideas that were challenging to how Christians viewed the world. The rationale (mentioned by Steve above) was simply described in an intro-lecture at my College where I was torn between the apparent and simple reality of selection, and a previously and erroneously held belief that these ideas were heresy. I have found that evolution, as many of you have mentioned above, is the evidence of God’s nurturing in a Creation that is changing and unpredictable, and I hope for a world and a church that focuses on loving foremost and reconciliation. I am glad to see that Ken and all of you are doing that.
February 18th, 2009 at 12:24 pm
I’m an evangelical, and I approve this message!
February 18th, 2009 at 1:31 pm
John, as a evolutionary biologist, I can tell you that social Darwinism, eugenics, etc. are definitely Darwin misread and badly misapplied. All of my colleagues would agree with me on that point; Darwin’s ideas were not meant to be applied to a social setting. Darwin himself pointed this out in “The Descent of Man,” noting that culture itself creates a situation where natural selection may no longer apply. I think that your question about whether eugenics was the logical result of applying Darwin thinking to social settings is a bit like asking whether the Crusade was a logical result of Jesus’ preaching; maybe, superficially, you can say that one resulted in the other, but really, it takes a bad misreading of Darwin and a bad misreading of Jesus.
February 18th, 2009 at 2:38 pm
Ken- Seeing the Science and Faith communities dialoguing throughout this thread and through the Friendship Collaborative gives me hope for the day that Buckeyes and Wolverines can live together in harmony. Probably a couple of centuries off, but I’ll keep the hope.
February 18th, 2009 at 3:28 pm
Roz Said:
“it’s not clear to me why rehabilitating Darwin in the minds of evangelicals or proving to biologists that Christians aren’t leprous is an immediate priority.”
I think it’s pretty clear. This is about healing. Both sides for too long have been caught up in a finger-pointing tirade about the existence of God, and whether or not what we observe in nature is true than working together to do something noble for benefit of the world. Some may disagree, but science and scripture are not at odds; they’re not mutually exclusive. Too often I meet people from either side that are so closed-minded, that I’m immediately turned off. If your not with me, you’re against. It needs to end, and this is one step in the right direction.
Thank you, Ken.
February 18th, 2009 at 3:43 pm
John Crane Said:
“…social implications of his evolutionary ideas have resulted in racism, eugenics, genocide, etc.”
Racism, I think, is enough. Eugenics, genocide, and all other types of xenophobic behaviors all arise from racism and hate. And that, my friend, has been around longer than 150 years. It’s true that xenophobes hide behind the idea of natural selection now, but their hate bred from fear and distrust has been around since the inception of man. Cain and Abel, although not the story is not racist in nature due to having the same parents, were different in their offerings to God. That difference lead to Abel’s death at Cain’s hands.
February 18th, 2009 at 4:02 pm
PJ, Yes, and as an evangelical and a Christian we people of faith have to acknowledge that the our faith was often misused–we took the Lord’s name in vain–in supporting slavery, resisting it’s overturn (as well as parts of our community advocating for it, without the 2nd Great Awakening it would have been hard to do…) This is what is so embarassing to me when evangelicals blame Darwin for things which the church was complicit in as well in it’s time. Religion and Science are human enterprises, and so they share the messiness of the human condition. Both scientists and evangelicals are attempting to rise above our worst instincts.
February 18th, 2009 at 5:04 pm
I’m an evangelical, and, Ken this is a great post. Like any age-old grudge, after a while we forget what it was that originally sparked the divide — and the divide widens. As a man happily married to a scientist, who also happens to be an evangelical, I appreciate this post and offer an apology to Darwin and scientists alike on behalf of my tribe.
February 18th, 2009 at 6:24 pm
ken said:
“Both scientists and evangelicals are attempting to rise above our worst instincts.”
And that’s a great way to put it. It is “instinct” to shun the dissimilar, the odd, etc. It’s natural to push away that which we don’t understand. I’d like to be one of the first to meet in the middle, shake hands, and “make up” because neither side accomplishes anything blogging at each other’s throats.
Difference should be accepted, and common goals should be the topic of discussion.
February 18th, 2009 at 6:33 pm
I couldn’t be more pleased with the open and civil dialog going on here. We have evangelicals communicating with biologists, perhaps for the first time for some. More of this is needed. And let’s be sober about what we’re touching here. So far as I can tell this is at the epicenter of the culture war that has absorbed so much of our energy, like most wars destructive energy. Darwin didn’t light this match, the culture war aspect. That was, according to historian George Marsden at Duke, Thomas Huxley, who first used the war metaphor in a cultural sense to describe this issue. IN the United States,this is at the center of a great cultural divide. And religion is wrapped up in culture as is science. If scientist can live up to their scientific ideals and evangelicals can live up to the way of their founder, Jesus, we’ll be in a much better position.
February 18th, 2009 at 9:06 pm
As a young evangelical, I affirm this and am sorry.
February 18th, 2009 at 10:00 pm
I’m a member of a Presbyterian church, I edited science textbooks for a major publisher for two years, and I add my voice to this apology. Darwin’s theories of natural selection do not conflict with Genesis. What people get all up-in-arms about is the origin of species, and at the end of his life Darwin said that the origin was of course a mighty Creator.
Thank you, Darwin, for your many contributions to our understanding of God’s creation.
Christianity does not have to be anti-intellectual.
February 18th, 2009 at 10:22 pm
Well said!
For any who are interested, a good read about Darwin as a person is “The Reluctant Mr. Darwin”. He was a remarkably patient, observant individual who was agonizingly slow to publish his ideas. He was not a radical pushing an anit-religion agenda. I commend him for his contributions to modern biology, most significantly for providing the philosophical framework that helps make sense of all of biology and has even been incorporated into other fields, like psychology.
February 19th, 2009 at 12:12 am
Clay,
If Darwin’s ideas represent a reasonably accurate picture of what happens in nature, then it’s not enough to say they “weren’t meant to be applied to social setting.” Nature is part of God’s revelation to us. I think it is important not to gloss over the implications of this. If “social Darwinism” is misapplied, then it is important, at least for Christians who accept Darwin’s theories, to expound on why it is misapplied. Not that I am saying you need to do this, just that the discussion is warranted.
February 19th, 2009 at 12:23 am
I am a pastor and thank you for your post. Copernicus, Gallileo, Darwin, scientists all, who the church authorities misunderstood, as their new ideas, when followed to their extremes, challenged the status quo. I look forward to the next great theory of creation/origin, because I love to see God’s mysteries exposed, His amazing plans, His greatness & ways which are so different from ours. Many physicists findings seem to be foreshadowed by a creator. I applaud all scientists who for the beauty of their art, their science, are not afraid to question, to theorize, and to envision new ways to see. I apologize as a church representative for allowing Darwin to be maligned as an anti-creationist.
February 19th, 2009 at 9:27 am
Being immersed in the pursuit of understanding of our observable world, that is being a scientist myself, I am disturbed that there is so much rancor and strife over things “scientific” versus things “theological.” To me this is a false dichotomy.
I practice psychiatry. I also try to stay abreast of other scientific pursuits. It seems self-evident there the more we think we know the more we realize how little we know; the more we stand in awe of creation. Thereby, I consider it a simple logical deduction that there must be a higher power; i.e., God.
“What’s the difference between God and the doctor?,” I often ask my patients as I invite them to explore their spiritual life (especially in the face of vexing addiction and/or mental illness).
The answer: “At least God knows He’s not a doctor.”
February 19th, 2009 at 9:39 am
thank you for this!! i agree 100%
February 19th, 2009 at 9:40 am
As an evangelical pastor’s child, I affirm Pastor Ken’s apology and am sorry.
February 19th, 2009 at 10:46 am
Ken,
I do apologize! I simply did not embrace ‘Darwin’ as a person. My murky conception of him would be something that had two horns and a tail. Thanks for briefly sharing about him from a compassionate point of view.
And, thanks again for another tug towards the center.
February 19th, 2009 at 12:07 pm
#119 Bob, i don’t see that any other explanation is possible other than the social scientists blatantly and ignorantly misapplied a biological theory to society and culture.
by your logic, we have no retort to those skeptics who blame Jesus for the inquisition.
I’m just guessing you wouldn’t accept that charge, would you?
February 19th, 2009 at 12:16 pm
Roz in #105, you are spot on- the FACT of evolution neither proves or disproves the existence of god- it merely shows us the mechanism God chose to use to create this wonderful diviersity of life that we are just beginning to understand.
while it is true that people like Dawkins are philosophical naive in making these type of claims, i don’t think Ken’s intention is to let them off the hook absolutely, but rather, his focus in this thread is to take responsibility for our end of the problems.
because they are important, we need to have the philosophical and theological discussions, but after we acknowledge our own failings imho.
February 19th, 2009 at 12:31 pm
Steve and other biologists, what wonderful gifts and opportunities you have been given. Since Darwin is dead, I would like to apologize to you personally. We all share the same constraints on this planet; we can only observe and test what is seen from a scientific standpoint. It is encouraging to listen to someone articulate the issues from your perspectives. By Ken’s definition, I would consider myself an evangelical.
I was raised in a fundamentalist (Baptist) environment. For many years, most of what I heard from other Christians, pastors, and teachers was that evolution was the deception used to keep people from believing in a creator. It wasn’t until I heard Ken say many years ago that, “we must find a landing pad for the gospel within the evolutionary story,” did I begin to challenge my own understanding and what I believed. I hope many within the science disciplines can begin to feel less threatened by those that claim a belief in Christ. Many of us have done things in ignorance because of our upbringing. Regardless of our background, we are still accountable for how we have treated others.
There will always be people that use fear and judgment to control others and to make their own lack of faith, hope and love, feel more substantive. Please look beyond these false teachers, and realize that there are many followers of Jesus who consider him to be the architect involved in all of creation. “I was the architect at his side. I was his constant delight…Proverbs 8:30 (NLT).” What Christ offers us is freedom, love, and friendship beyond measure. This is not some guilt trip that we are on. It is an awareness that the greatest opportunities for us to understand the universe we live in, is to esteem those that have committed their lives to observing and researching all of creation.
February 19th, 2009 at 1:17 pm
I am still struggling with this concept of corporate apology (I never had a problem with evolution despite being an evangelical since 1985, nor was I exposed to much pressure not to believe in it by my pastors), I need to think about it some more.
But I see one common factor in these culture war issues: Fear.
One side fears that if left unchecked, the opponents will create a Taliban-like theocracy with no room for unbieased scientific endeavor. The other fears a Soviet-like atheist regime with no room for the pursuit of the divine.
I guess both have happened in history, so the fear is not without basis.
Since Christianity’s founder often called on those who identified with him NOT to fear, and one of his followers is quoted as saying that ‘there is no fear in love for perfect love casts out fear’, then maybe the ball is on Christian’s court to be the ones to take the 1st step in building a bridge to the opposite camp.
I am finding it to be useful to look at all my motivations in life and to question those that are based on fear. Nothing good seems to come from these.
February 19th, 2009 at 2:38 pm
Joao, Given your Brazilian heritage, this just may not be one of those things that you can (or should) own. I think gem (comment 127) and Jack (comment 124) were truly moved by the Spirit to say what they said and the way they said. Gem directing her comments personally to the biologist in this post. Fellow evangelicals, find yourself a secular biologist and ask them to tell you honestly what they have experienced from evangelical Christians on this issue; assure them that you only want to listen, not to offer any of your christian beliefs. And if they unpack some stories that indicate they’ve been treated with something less than the Spirit of Jesus, let them know that you are very sorry they’ve felt or heard or been told that by Christians. If you feel it that is, and if you mean it. Say no more than that. Then ponder what the biologist told you and ask Jesus to give you his heart’s response to what they said–not to say anything to them, but just to know his heart on this matter.
February 19th, 2009 at 3:24 pm
One of the things I’ve always wondered about is why the majority of American Evangelicals in particular have gotten on this anti-Darwin kick. I also wonder why American Christians don’t get equally upset. Oh. With the germ theory of medicine, let’s say. Or black hole theory. Or quark theory. Or string theory. Or the mathematics of irrational numbers. Or probability theory. Or chaos theory.
If evolutionary theory by natural selection looks like it is anti-God, why wouldn’t all the rest of this stuff–all of scientific theory–look like it is anti-God? Why is there much more emotion around Darwin than the rest of this? Why don’t the majority of American Evangelicals reject all of science indiscriminately? Why the selectivity?
I’m a Christian. Not an Evangelical. And I don’t recall a time when I bashed or felt like bashing Darwin. Although, I have felt the temptation periodically regarding Richard Dawkins and Michael Behe, for example. And for this, I apologize.
February 19th, 2009 at 3:37 pm
Pastor Ken,
Knowing that your heart is to unify, not divide the theological and the scientific circles, I find this post to be a refreshing approach for all evangelicals to consider. I do concur that as a Christian community, a corporate apology could help to heal for many of our past collective sins against others, perhaps more than just to Darwin.
According to a program I heard on NPR, Darwin delayed on submitting his work for Origin of Species for fear of the ostracism from the church community… his intent was to encourage discovery and thought, not to attack God. The more that I study science, I see it as a way to “know God” more by studying his amazing creation.
My first degree was in Biology, and I recall many of my colleagues in Evolutionary Biology class who couldn’t understand the “wrath” of evangelicals, especially when those same evangelicals hadn’t even taken the time to read Origin of Species or any of Darwin’s work. So, I’m in favor of your premise that, “we ought to spend a little more time understanding science so that we make up for lost time,” not just for ourselves and seeking to know God more, but FOR THE SAKE OF THE GOSPEL.
February 19th, 2009 at 6:23 pm
If the scientific theory of evolution is true, then I should never become a bible-believing christian!! Here’s why:
“Evidence of evolution poses a unique problem for Christianity. At least, Christianity in most of its modern variants that accept the doctrines of Original Sin and Salvation through Grace. This is primarily because in order for a Christian to accept evolution, he or she has to consider that the book of Genesis, at least for the first few chapters, is myth or allegory. Accepting evolution means rejecting the Garden of Eden, the story of Adam and Eve, and most importantly, rejecting the story of Adam and Eve eating the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil and subsequently being expelled from Eden. The problem is that this story provides the basis for one of the centerpieces of traditional Christian theology: Original Sin. In traditional Christianity, Adam and Eve’s disobedience in eating the fruit was Original Sin, which was then passed on to their descendants, namely us.
“Original Sin, according to theologians such as Augustine, Martin Luther, John Calvin, and many others, prevents human beings from achieving salvation on their own. It so corrupts a person that they cannot be virtuous at all–virtue only comes through the intervention of grace. (The most popular scriptural support for this proposition is Romans 5:12-21, which ties Original Sin and the Adam and Eve story together). It was not until Jesus Christ, who was without Original Sin, came into this world and was crucified that Original Sin could be washed away by the grace of God, and those who receive grace are no longer damned. (This is usually accomplished through Baptism.) Without Original Sin, the doctrine of salvation through grace is on much murkier ground. After all, if people are not hopelessly corrupted through Original Sin, then there is no need for salvation by grace–people can be either damned or not based on their own merit. And if people can be damned or saved on their own merit, then it cannot be said that Christ died as a sacrifice to take upon himself the sins of those who accept him.
“Put simply, if a Christian interprets the Bible such that he accepts the doctrines of Original Sin and of Salvation by Grace (and most Christian sects do), then that Christian has to accept the literal truth of Genesis. To do otherwise means to develop an entirely new theology.”
http://www.hereticalideas.com/2008/07/the-problem-of-darwinism/
February 19th, 2009 at 8:22 pm
Amen, and I appreciate the apology. My husband is an evolutionary biologist by profession and we have gotten some static from various Christians over the years. It is so important to make our churches places where scientists, and the scientifically-minded, can find homes.
February 19th, 2009 at 9:49 pm
For the sake of completeness would like to apologize for my tribe, evolutionary biologists and more generally scientists.
I personally need to learn to accept and love people who don’t agree with me about natural history. I often resort to extremely divisive rhetoric which alienates believers from a scientific view point, and I ought to know beter.
(I have probably ended up yelling and saying horrible things to at three separate people. I really am apologizing for myself in addition to my tribe.)
My mother works with a Christian biologist who my mother says is a creationist (which I still have trouble believing, but this may exhibit my own prejudices) and this educated, Christian woman feels has told me that she feels alienated from her co-workers over their open hostility towards Christians.
So, I deeply appreciate these honourable and sincere appologize and I hope that we can close the rift between scientist and religious lay people. So, from (another) evolutionary biologist, thank you, and I will strive to show grace and understanding as well!
(Now, if you will all wish me luck on finding a PhD program….)
February 20th, 2009 at 11:58 am
NOTE TO READERS ON COMMENT 132 from Mark. I’ll be doing a future post on that sector of American evangelism that is represented in Mark’s comment. We’ve got enough blogs and websites to fill a major internet superhighway with this sort of thing, so I don’t want to turn this conversation into another version of this old and I think wearing thin diatribe that has been going on in America since the Scopes trial. I do hope that Brian B, a previous commenter reads comment 132. Imagine, Brian, being a biologist and reading this sort of thing. Imagine that you are interested in Jesus of Nazareth, and you read this. Does it draw you closer to Jesus or not? And yet this comment is not unusual. It’s a “my way of the highway” approach. It is contrary to the early evangelical responders to Darwin like B.B. Warield, the father of the biblical inerrancy doctrine, who is among those viewed as “outside the evangelical camp” by this comment. I think it’s elevating one very particular reading of Genesis (one shaped by a modern mindset, ironically) and absolutizing it.
February 20th, 2009 at 12:26 pm
Amen– I’m an evangelical and I present my apologies to Darwin as well as current members of the scientific community. Hostility, fear and isolationism are not becoming characteristics of the church community– especially if we believe that we are meant to be a light to the world!
February 20th, 2009 at 3:36 pm
Thanks, Ken. I look forward to your future post.
Meanwhile, it seems to me that the obsessive focus on Mr Darwin for over a century by the elders and leaders of anti-evolutionism has always been a deliberate con and deception, and here’s why:
“This, I suspect, is why opponents of evolution focus on Darwin so much: because to focus on one man, and to attribute an entire branch of science to that one man, rather than the faceless processes of peer review and experimentation, makes it that much easier to resist the ideas of evolution and all of the consequences of those ideas…
“As a man, Darwin is flesh and blood. He can be ignored, he can be attacked. He can be accused of fallibility and his inconsistencies can be exploited. By tying the idea of evolution to Darwin the man, evolution’s opponents are able to distract people from the fact that research into evolution is ongoing and did not stop with Darwin. It’s a rhetorical device being used to undermine evolution by divorcing it from science…
“The best way to undermine this rhetorical trick is simply to reject “Darwinism” and evolution as synonyms, as they are not. Advocates of evolution need to point out the mountains of scientific research into evolution post-Darwin (particularly research into genetics), and show that the science of evolution does not start and stop with one man.”
http://www.hereticalideas.com/2008/07/the-problem-of-darwinism/
Amen and amen.
February 20th, 2009 at 4:44 pm
Mark, This is exactly the point (if I understand it) that my secular biology buddy, Carl Safina made in his recent NYtimes post. Which got him into some hot water with his fellow scientists. See his blog post on thishttp://carlsafina.wordpress.com/
February 20th, 2009 at 8:27 pm
I am sorry for being mean and not always giving science the chance to speak and tell the story the way science tells the story… As an evangelical I want to learn more about our mother earth and care for it scientifically and spiritually. It matters. It is part of the story. I am listening…
February 21st, 2009 at 12:36 am
Ken,
Regarding post 132 that you wanted me to read…I hardly see how a biologist, interested in Jesus, would be adversely impacted by reading such a thing…is the responsibility of Christians in evangelism really to not hold any views that non-Christians don’t agree with? That would be pretty difficult to live up to.
I don’t personally think a theistic evolution view requires the conclusions reached in post 132. Dinesh D’Souza, one of my favorite authors, in his book “What’s So Great About Christianity” presents his views on theistic evolution in such a way that even a knuckle dragging creationist like me can see how God can be glorified in that view.
But for comments like in post 132 to impact a biologist in such a negative manner as you suggest…I don’t see why it would. There was nothing mean or particularly hostile in the comments. I’m not sure what you would ask of someone who sincerely holds the beliefs expressed in post 132? Keep their thoughts to themselves? Zip it? If the comments were mean, I’d get your point. But they aren’t.
February 21st, 2009 at 4:53 am
Brian, No the comments in post 132 are not mean. But meanness is not the only way to hinder someone from receiving the gospel. But they are narrow minded. They are expressed in a way that says, this is the only legitimate way to read Genesis. My way, or the highway. There’s not a shred of Romans 14 “this is a debatable issue” perspective here.
It IS also hindrance to the gospel when we place obstacles in people’s way that are not in fact a part of the scandal of the gospel itself. The view expressed in Post 132 are typical in MANY evangelical churches. If you had a dear friend who was a biologist, would you want that dear friend to go to such a church, where the perspectives comment 132 are the accepted orthodoxy of the church culture as a whole (not simply a view that some dear people hold)? Not me. So the problem with the views expressed in 132 are that that they are held with meanness. The problem is that the biologist might well believe that they are true. And that his/her knowledge of the world is incompatible with following Jesus.
February 21st, 2009 at 10:27 am
Ken -
Glad to see you doing this, it is much needed! My blog has some additional reflections on the evolution of the universe, not just our species. No matter how one slices it, evolutionist or creationist, we all began in the mud. To be human is to made of humus – from the soil, and our destiny is bound up with that of the earth – our home and the mother of our human nature. Remember that the New Jerusalem, the mother of our new divine nature, comes from heaven to earth where it remains in marriage bonds. The earth and all of the forms of life that are in it, past, present, future, are the delight of the Great Gardener. The universe continues to evolve – though we have a choice to participate in it or not – toward our great destiny, union with the Divine Family of God, what we call in Orthodoxy, theosis.
Peter Thomason
February 21st, 2009 at 8:06 pm
Whoot! Amen brother
February 21st, 2009 at 9:41 pm
Forgive us. Thank you Ken. Amen!
February 22nd, 2009 at 1:07 pm
apologies. and there are so many more to whom we need to apologize.
February 22nd, 2009 at 5:17 pm
Ken–thought you’d be interested to hear of an experience I just had.
As you know, I’m in the business world. This week I’m in Boston for a series of pretty heady lectures on current tax/legal/financial matters (drinkin’ lots of coffee, thats for sure…). This very minute I’m sitting in one of the lectures (gotta love wireless access) and the speaker just drew an analogy that caught my attention. He was referencing two groups of people that have radically different views on the same topic (a particular tax planning issue, but that’s not the point) and that their difference of opinion is so stark and so polar that it has caused an extreme and irreconcilable disconnect in communication and relationship between them. He paused and then said “The analogy I always think of is that it’s like the creationists and evolutionists.” He then made some other comment with the implied point being that these two groups will never be able to come together.
Interesting that the business world–certainly not where we’d find the model of loving relationships–must look to the conflict between creationists and evolutionists as a hyperbole example of two groups not being able to get along.
February 22nd, 2009 at 5:46 pm
What is obvious to the children of this world, the children of light are blind to. Another example of the idiocy of thinking we can always win the argument without losing the heart.
February 23rd, 2009 at 1:05 am
I was raised an evangelical and still wear the label. My father was a molecular biologist by training and I’ve always appreciated science. I recall as a child thinking that if the earth really was so young, God was fully capable of making it appear old. The ‘creation science’ stuff I read quickly proved to not hold much water. I went to Calvin College in W. MI and one of the astronomy profs there made a point of distinguishing between the Bible and it’s poetic literature and Science texts–a point I’ve read in scanning this blog. That really makes a lot of sense to me. How silly for us to be arguing about day lengths and all that when the true point of the Bible is that God is the originator of life. I’m comfortable with the ‘inconsistencies’ between Science’s facts and the Bible’s descriptions.
With Ken, I want to offer my sincere appologies for the evangelical bent against science.
February 23rd, 2009 at 9:45 am
Thanks Ken you always encourage us to use the little grey cells. I agree.
February 23rd, 2009 at 11:59 am
Ken,
I apologize to Darwin and to every other scientist who brought us to where we are today; I apologize to every future scientist, thinker, doer, who will bring heaven knows what else to this universe. Mostly, I apologize to my creator for thinking I could put HIm/Her into a box, somehow believing that He/She is not way ahead of us and laughing at our baby steps.
A kicking and screaming Evangelical,
MAT
February 23rd, 2009 at 3:18 pm
Amen. Thanks for the post!
February 23rd, 2009 at 10:04 pm
I an over 60 year old physician who has flirted with church going off and on throughout my life. For the last ten years I have been a consistent attendee and can now acknowledge that I am a Christian, and that I even attend an evangelical church. The cause for my previous wandering away was always, in one way or another, the negative judgements toward other humans I would hear rather than the love i believed Jesus would preach if he were present. So I say, yes to Ken’s call to try to understand each other, discuss our differences, and focus on what joins rather than divides us. And that science and Christianity can and do coexist in God’s world. And that I sympathize with Darwin among many others.
February 23rd, 2009 at 10:07 pm
I am an over 60 year old physician who has flirted with church going off and on throughout my life. For the last ten years I have been a consistent attendee and can now acknowledge that I am a Christian, and that I even attend an evangelical church. The cause for my previous wandering away was always, in one way or another, the negative judgements toward other humans I would hear rather than the love i believed Jesus would preach if he were present. So I say, yes to Ken’s call to try to understand each other, discuss our differences, and focus on what joins rather than divides us. And that science and Christianity can and do coexist in God’s world. And that I sympathize with Darwin among many others.
February 23rd, 2009 at 10:41 pm
Ken,
One of the greatest challenges any believer faces is to engage with the whole of a person’s life and work, to read and see it with benevolence and nuance, to refuse to demonize and choose to dignify, and then to render the most humble of judgments as far as needed – and as far as one’s so limited eye can see.
In the case of Darwin, his fascinating journey toward the moment he “committed a murder” must be regarded as one of the most challenging moments a thinking Christian must face.
I for one have recognized the glory and genius of his work, and have sought to give a fair hearing to the claims of his biology. It is in the assumptions related to human origins that the jury, though shouted from the rooftops today, must remain out for me. I leave this jury out humbly, and find no fear in engaging the best of science from the vantage point of an energized faith.
In regard to those of us who have approached scientists of today with adversarial postures and enflamed language, I offer my apology.
We are not very good at enacting love in conversation nor in vigorous debate.
I can say this today. Darwin’s vision of the glories of the natural world should be celebrated as some of the most rich and exhilarating material in all creation thinking. Even our evangelical chagrin at our proposed descent from apes (again, I am not stating my conclusions here) comes from a diminished and arrogant view of the non-human plant and animal kingdom – not an image-bearing view of a sparkling humanity made in God’s image.
A complex world should be treated with high regard, as should its explorations by our discoverers. Such a vastly stunning universe should not be demeaned so that we can feel as though we’ve elevated God by debasing ourselves and his creation.
Apologies to Darwin and Christian disdain of his passionate meanderings behind the veil of the natural world.
To engage in a rich dialogue with science, as an average Christian believer and as a student of creation, should in part be the joy of every follower of Jesus. Thanks to Darwin (and his lesser acclaimed partner) who had the courage to paint their rich connections between all living things.
February 24th, 2009 at 8:52 am
Ken, thank you so much for posting this insightful and much needed message. I affirm everything you are saying and I too send my apologies to Darwin and all scientist (past, present and future) that have worked so hard to bring us to where we are today.
February 24th, 2009 at 11:01 am
Amen, Ken. I am an evangelical and I too apologize to Darwin and the scientific community. I think we may need to take it one step further and apologize to God for messing this one up and steering people away from Him.
February 24th, 2009 at 9:48 pm
Thanks for your thoughts Ken. I’ve been a Christian for about about 15 years now and the longer I am a Christain, the more “blurry” the Secular/Sacred divide has become for me. It grieves my heart that Christians and Scientists believe that the two must be mutually exclusive. Or that Christians argue that Scientists are “without faith” or “cold and calculating”. That Scientists counter-argue that Christians are “too emotional” and “uneducated”. There is so much that is lost when we look at the two as mutualy exclusive. How many times has Science proven and given credibility to the Christian message? How many times has a Scientists faith driven them to seek and share a new theory or idea?
I admit in my early days, I was one of those “Darwin Bashers”…but as time has gone on..as I have matured as an individual spiritually and intellectually… I have come to realize that there is inherent value in both sides. So to you Mr. Darwin and those of you in the Scientific community, my deepest apologies.
There needs to be and there must be room for both.
February 25th, 2009 at 7:00 pm
Greetings Ken. I am new to your blog, and if my points have been brought up elsewhere, I apologize.
I agree totally that how we treat scientists needs to change. We need to be scientifically relevant, and understanding, while standing firm in our beliefs. I also agree that evolution as proposed by Darwin, is for the most part, correct. However, I do not agree that this is to be applied to humans.
From what I am reading, I get the impression that you are saying that the Adam and Eve story is an allegory, and not literally how humanity began, without really coming out and saying it. (or am I misreading it?)
If this is indeed what you believe, then how do you believe sin entered into man? (this obviously ties into post #132)
Thank you.
February 25th, 2009 at 7:34 pm
James, I wouldn’t call Genesis 2-3 allegory, as I don’t think it’s allegorical (as Pilgrim’s Progress clearly is). I do think it is telling the story of human creation in a way that is understandable for the people it was first told to, and by extension to us as well. I think the text itself wants to be read that way, and this is why there are clear indications in the text that it is not to be read in a literal way (the obvious differences in the order of creation between Gen 1 and 2, the fact that read literally, the offspring of Adam and Eve would be forced to commit incest, etc.) So I think it is fully inspired and reliable in telling the truth. I just don’t read it as though it were telling the truth in the language of science, which hadn’t been invented yet. Read this way, I think it’s consistent with what can be known scientifically. As to sin entering the human experience, I believe what Genesis 2-3 teaches, which is that this happens through disobedience, and that the root has to do with our grasping for knowledge we aren’t yet ready for. If God didn’t use the mechanism of natural selection in the creation of humans then I think the only way to interpret the evidence (like the nature of the human genome, etc.) would be to say that God intentionally set it up to look as though he did. Something I don’t think is likely, as he’s not into that sort of trick thing. But that’s just me. Personal opinion. One thing I know: sin made it’s way to me!
February 26th, 2009 at 4:13 pm
Thank you for your answer Ken.
As alluded to in my previous post, I still do not support the idea of Darwinism applied to human beings. I have no problem with Evolution in the animal kingdom at all. What I am wondering though is, do you believe that God created human beings directly, or did God set in motion the process of Evolution, and we evolved from lower species He created into Home Sapiens?
February 26th, 2009 at 6:02 pm
James, Here’s the problem: we’ve been operating within the framework of a false choice. We either picture God creating like a watchmaker (wind up the watch and then let it run at a distance: DEISM) or as a magician-puppeteer (instantaneous special creation of each species, or in your twist, just homo sapiens). In Darwin’s time the latter was the picture of orthodoxy, so he naturally rejected it when he discovered the process of natural selection. But what if there is a third option: fathering forth. God creates a father does with a wise combination of hands on (command) and hands off but still involved (allowing the child to grow-chose, etc.) He creates and he allows what is created to become what it will become. Isn’t this the picture in Genesis 1, where you see a combination of command “And God said,” and something else “Let the sea swarm forth, let the earth bring forth…) This, I think is consistent with the word picture of God on his knees making the human from the humous (adam from adamah, play on words in hebrew). It’s not “poof”–there’s contraint having to do with the pre-existent stuff (dirt) and there’s shaping of the dirt under God’s hands. Fathering forth. In other words this is not a cut and dried mechanical process creating, but a mysterious, artistic creating. We’re talking about God here. And there is no matter,no stuff, without God. That too is the work of his hands. And he sustains it all with his word. God creates and he lets the creation be itself. Like fathering. Which of course, is one of the main themes of Genesis.
February 27th, 2009 at 5:33 pm
Uhm, is that a “yes”? lol
Seriously, thank you for your time. I am praying about some of your posts, and seeing where God leads my heart and my beliefs.
February 27th, 2009 at 8:04 pm
Amen. Good stuff.
February 28th, 2009 at 12:30 am
As an evangelical who for many years feared and vilified evolution and the scientists exploring it, I apologize. I am a professor at an evangelical college now, and today Darwin is a hero of mine.
I’m happy to be raising my daughter to emulate all people who ask prophetic questions in their search for truth– Darwin especially. If my Christian daughter grows up to be half the gentle soul and stubborn truth-seeker that Darwin was, I will be a proud father indeed.
Thanks for your post, Ken. It’s obviously provoking great discussion.
March 1st, 2009 at 9:45 am
Very interesting set of discussions!
Since we are on the issue of apologies, I would also like to apologize for “my tribe” (scientists). In my time, I have met scientists who belittle Chistians and their beliefs, usually in private but sometimes “publically.” I have one colleague who has repeatedly berated his graduate students for believing in God (he is a physiologist NOT an evolutionary biologist, BTW!). It has made his students quite uncomfortable, and is truly inappropriate. In my opinion, it is wrong to criticize others’ beliefs, but especially so from a position of “power” like that of a major professor!
So, from the scientific side, I would like to apologize for the likes of this guy and people like Richard Dawkins who help fan the flames of this “cultural divide.” Greater tolerance of differences of opinion from “both sides” is needed to help us heal this divide so that we can move forward to confront the serious issues awaiting the entire “human tribe” in the 21st century!
March 1st, 2009 at 11:42 am
I used to call my self an evangelical but would not anymore because of issues just like this.
My apologies Mr. Darwin for what my former tribe has said and done to you.
March 1st, 2009 at 3:20 pm
my apologies to charles darwin and the scientific community! I hope I can help sponge his name clean.
March 1st, 2009 at 5:06 pm
I grew up evangelical, and certainly gave my fair share of hatred towards Darwin, and all those who claimed belief in evolution. As I’ve aged, I’ve wisened, and I’m truly sorry for my arrogance, my ignorance, and my misunderstanding.
March 1st, 2009 at 5:26 pm
I am so happy this discussion is taking place! AMEN! I was fascinated by Darwin during high school and ended up reading his biography for a senior project. My family were not church-goers, but I was raised in a very small, conservative Midwestern town, and I grew up with the impression that Charles Darwin was essentially an enemy of God. But after actually looking into his writings and reading about his life, I have always been sympathetic towards him and his ideas, even after I came to the Christian faith several years ago. In my opinion, this apology has been a long time coming from people like myself who profess to follow Jesus and who subscribe to the notion that everyone “should be quick to listen, slow to speak.”
March 1st, 2009 at 5:58 pm
As evangelicals, especially attending a “liberal” university and living in the college town that’s home that university, both my husband and I have struggled with reconciling our belief in a creator God and our understanding of the scientific view of the world and natural selection/evolution. It always seemed to us that there was room for both. And sure that’s a little scary for both the Christians and the scientists. But if history has shown us anything, it’s that we do the worst things to each other when we don’t bother to understand one another. So thanks, Ken, for opening up the door for dialogue and reconciliation.
March 1st, 2009 at 11:58 pm
NOTE TO READERS FROM KEN: I DECIDED TO POST THIS COMMENT SO THAT YOU COULD SEE WHAT IT IS THAT WE ARE SORRY FOR, THIS SORT OF RESPONSE TO DARWIN THAT THOUGH EXTREME, HAS NEVERTHELESS FOUND A HOME IN AMERICAN EVANGELICALISM. I WILL POST A COMMENT ON THIS COMMENT BENEATH IT. THIS, THEN IS FROM “SAM”:
I am sorry, Charles Darwin. I am sorry that your theory has led millions of people to bow to the goddess Mother Nature and away from the one Creator God. I am sorry that Darwinism has given mankind an excuse to believe in subjective morality and turn their face from objective truth. I am sorry that so many people believe in your theory, despite so much evidence against it. And I’m sorry that we live in a time in which I’m supposed to be nice and accept Darwinism (because of the Golden Rule?), because that is more important now than accepting and seeking truth. Truly sorry.
March 2nd, 2009 at 12:25 pm
Comment on Sam’s Comment: Fellow evangelicals, if we accept Sam’s reasoning that Darwin is responsible for the things he sites (nature worship, moral decline) then we are accepting the kind of reasoning that would also blame Jesus for the crusades and other evils. It is equally faulty reasoning and we should reject it. Also note that Sam dismisses the application of the golden rule (treat others that as we would want to be treated for this IS the Law and the Prophets). I simply asked Sam through my post to listen to Darwin’s perspectives as he (Sam) would want to be listened to before condemning Darwin. I don’t think Sam has taken me up on the suggestion. Darwin simply said that he could infer a mechanism at work through his observations about nature: that nature has a means of selecting which members of a species breed and which do not, thus bringing about changes in the species over time. This mechanism called “natural selection” [as opposed to the "artificial selection" of horse, dog, pigeon and plant breeders] was likely, according to Darwin, to be a natural explanation for the wide variety of species–that biological life is related, sharing common ancestry.
Darwin was not a theologian or even a very devout believer. The Anglican faith that he inherited had a very particular view of how God created and that species were immutable, forever fixed once created. Darwin couldn’t reconcile his observations of nature with this scenario, so he rejected it.
Others, who were more theologically astute, like B.B. Warfield, the father of the doctrine of biblical inerrancy and a contributor to “the fundamentals” (after with fundamentalism gets its name) thought otherwise. He saw no conflict between Darwin’s view of natural selection and a faithful reading of Genesis 1 & 2. Sam disagrees with the father of the doctrine of biblical inerrancy on this point. He would also disagree with Augustine who warned us not to read Genesis 1 & 2 as though it were a scientific text. C.S. Lewis would take the same view.
I think Sam’s “my way or the highway” understanding of his reading of Genesis (I’m inferring) is a serious obstacle to thoughtful people who are informed about science receiving the gospel. Hence, as an evangelical I object to Sam’s view, but more importantly, I think it is a very serious problem in our movement that many of us are intimidated by this view and reluctant to speak against it. That fear, I think, is not something that serves the interests of the gospel. Many pastors don’t want to touch this issue with a ten foot pole. And that keeps people on the outside of faith looking in at a distance as well. We pastors have been choosing job security over the evangelical mission. That’s wrong.
March 2nd, 2009 at 11:24 pm
I’m certainly in agreement that religion has treated science with disdain when the two are not inherently competitive.
I’m also in agreement with Sam that society has, in large part, sacrificed objective truth on the altar of subjective morality (although I don’t think Charles Darwin is solely to blame for this shift in cultural attitudes…post-modern thought didn’t arise from one man’s scientific theory.)
At the risk of digressing, I would like to applaud Steve, who issues an apology on behalf of scientists who denigrate Christians. I could spend a lot of time on this subject, but I’m choosing to exercise a great deal of restrain on that particular subject.
I disagree with Ken that “do unto others as you would have them do unto you” is the core of Christ’s message. It is undoubtedly an essential part of the Christian theology Jesus established. It is not The Gospel. To think otherwise is to place man’s actions ahead of God’s salvation. Indeed, that line of reasoning has it backwards; the reverse is true: salvation first, works that result from that salvation is second.
I’m not as intelligent as Charles Darwin. I think he came up with a fascinating theory. The minutae of how God, in His omniscience and omnipotence established Creation is not something my human mind can possibly comprehend. Don’t misunderstand. I’m not suggesting that it is somehow wrong to attempt, with vigorous scientific observation and inquiry, to discern these and other matters. What I’m suggesting is that mankind is guilty of a collective arrogance in regards to its attempts at comprehending God. That, among other reasons, is why I can’t understand the reasons behind some evangelicals’ celebration of an agnostic scientist, despite his obvious genius.
Thanks for providing a forum to share my opinion. I enjoyed your posts and others’ responses. God bless.
March 3rd, 2009 at 12:22 am
It’s tiresome to keep hearing the appeal to Warfield as though that ends all questioning, what B.B. Warfield believed. We need to be honest and think for ouselves. It doesn’t matter what Darwin believed personally as much as it matters what his ideas have birthed through their logical extension in our time: genocide, abortion, survival of the fittest, might makes right, lack of human dignity and lack of meaning for existence. We need to WAKE UP AND JUDGE THE TREE BY ITS FRUIT! Opposition to Darwinian evolution has not begun to cause the death and suffering that embracing it has caused.
If God used a progression of selective death (i.e., natural selection) to evolve life as we know it, then the fall is either a lie or allegorical and we are logically required to throw out or completely allegorize the entire first 12 chapters of Genesis. This means there is an equal chance that the first couple was Adam and Steve rather than Adam and Eve (homosexuals rejoice!), there was no literal Fall, there was no Sabbath, etc. I am all for sympathy for a weak and hapless fellow human (Darwin)and I agree demonizing him is fruitless, but unlike most others who have posted here I have no sympathy for the evil that has resulted from the logical extension of his theory in the hands of sinners. “Forms may differentiate within species due to natural selection” — this is science, it can be observed and replicated by independent observers. “Species evolve into other species as a slime mold eventually into a horse” — this is pure religious faith beyond any observation or experimentation. As such, it has no more merit than a special creation view, both are religious views outside of the realm of verification. Yet Darwin and the “molecules to man” religion is taught in our schools and Jesus is excluded. Let’s not be empty-headed in our rush to “love” to the point that we embrace folly and falsehood in the name of Jesus. The fact that the Bible is not explicitly a scientific text does not mean that it is false (or to be disregarded) in its description of the origins of the universe. There is no warrant for substituting the religious myths of Darwinism for the true revelation of Genesis, both are outside the realm of scientific verification and are therefore religious views. I’ll take the Bible’s account over man’s myths every time and I challenge you to have the integrity to do the same!
March 3rd, 2009 at 12:12 pm
As a Christian, scientist, and science educator, I applaud your enlightening post and respectful apologies to Darwin. I couldn’t agree more!
March 3rd, 2009 at 12:49 pm
Ken, thank you for this excellent post which I only just found through a friend. Like a number of others on this thread, I am an attender of an Evangelical church who cannot accept the label of Evangelical to himself due to the cultural and doctrinal baggage that comes with it (many of the issues on my own blog would get me labeled as a heretic by most Evangelicals I know).
I grew up in the home of a Christian astronomer who unapologetically taught me that the universe was in the billions of years old, and who dared to talk about “stellar evolution” in a devotional series he did (in churches!) entitled “The Heavens Declare.” So obviously I was not taught the hatred of Darwin, but I saw it firsthand through the many heated discussions that would happen after Dad’s presentations. Dad always taught me that science and faith inherently answer different questions: science tries to understand What and How and When, while faith addresses Who and, most importantly, Why. It is when either tries to usurp the other’s area of expertise, that sloppy thinking and unnecessary conflict result.
So I share and totally endorse your regret at how the church has blasted, not only Darwin, but so many scientists who are still living and taking heat. I also want to express my appreciation to Steve for his openness both in approaching this group, and expressing his own apology.
March 4th, 2009 at 2:12 pm
Ken,
I have been prayerfully reviewing your posts, and discussing them with Christians brothers.
I will agree that how we as Christians treat Scientists is shameful. However, I am still not sure of just what you believe about Evolution as it relates to Home Sapiens. Forgive my frankness, but your answer to my questions came across to me as a little evasive. So if you don’t mind, allow me to restate my question, in the hopes of receiving a direct answer.
Do you personally believe that:
A: God directly created mankind
B: God set into motion the process that allowed a lower species to BECOME mankind
Thank you.
March 4th, 2009 at 2:52 pm
James, This post is about an apology to Darwin, so I’m reserving it for that purpose. I’m sure I’ll be posting again on the evolution issue.The problem is, I think both a and b can be true at the same time, and I know that will annoy you, but we’re talking about God here. But again, that will have do for now, but this topic will come up again so stay tuned. Thanks for your understanding.
March 5th, 2009 at 9:02 am
I have no apology to make as my evangelicalism has never been compromised by Darwin’s theory – and I gave it plenty of thought when I came to Christ. Is it more of an American phenomena to dis Darwin I wonder?
Kimbal UK
March 5th, 2009 at 9:35 am
Kimbal, How great to hear from the UK! Yes it is largely an American phenomenon (and it goes wherever American evangelicalism does). In fact, one could say this issue is the epicenter of the American culture war. Love to hear more from you about how this issue is perceived in the U.K.
March 5th, 2009 at 12:23 pm
I am a biology student who constantly struggles with the creationism vs evolution ideas and I could not agree more. I’ve always seen a connection between both ideas, I’m so glad there’s christian people that are stepping out of that wrong idea of what christians are.
I apologize as well.
March 6th, 2009 at 12:46 am
I’m late to this party, but I would still like to contribute. As an evangelical minister, I’m ashamed of the reductionist thinking that Christians have been guilty of, and the way we have vilified Darwin. What a tragedy!
I’d also like to respond to Andrew (173). Instead of reading Jesus thru the lenses of Paul, you may want to try it the other way around. The ‘golden rule’ is nothing more than a restating of one of the two greatest commandments—”Love your neighbor as yourself”–on which hang all of the Law & the Prophets. I’d say it’s pretty much the core of Jesus’ message, wouldn’t you? Hence, we shouldn’t criticize Darwin without taking the time to read his stuff. We’d want anyone to give us the same courtesy and respect.
March 6th, 2009 at 3:02 pm
I am sorry for the ignorant comments I myself have made in the past and any I have let other people say in my presence since realizing I was wrong. Amen
March 8th, 2009 at 3:58 am
Evangelicals Asked to Repent of Straw-Man Anti-Darwinism
Link:
http://pasadenasubrosa.typepad.com/pasadena_sub_rosa/2009/03/evangelicals-invited-to-repent-for-strawman-beliefs-against-darwinism.html
March 8th, 2009 at 7:49 am
The blogger above who linked to his/her blog refers to a little article of mine that appeared in the Pasadena newspaper (Pasadena is home to Fuller Theological Seminary, one of the evangelical Big 3: A great school, by the way.] He writes in a follow up comment “So when is Rev. Ken Wilson going to repent for fabricating a straw-man anti-science evangelical who should repent for something that apparently doesn’t exist (as apparently the entire 182 posts above prove)?.” The fellow blogger might have missed my note at the end of this post indicating that I wouldn’t post anti-Darwin comments on this particular post, in honor of the man’s birthday. So the 182 (less because I posted a handful of times) doesn’t mean the entire movement shares my views. A web search on “evangelical” and “darwin” might come up with some other examples. The link to the Pasadena article is http://www.pasadenastarnews.com/ci_11860469
March 8th, 2009 at 7:55 am
This from “Steve in LA” is from the op-ed editor of the pasadena star, who left his comment re this post on a later post in this blog: “I am an opinion page editor here in pasadena, california. I rec’d Ken’s oped on repenting about evangelical’s feelings regarding Darwin. I am publishing it on Sunday March 8. I thought it was excellent. As an evangelical Christian myslef, i could not have said it better. Here’s the the beginning of the end of the culture wars…
Thanks.”
March 12th, 2009 at 7:53 pm
Ken, I’m sorry you even have to write a blog like this…apologizing for evangelical responses to scientists in general and Darwin in particular. I’m certainly glad that you have expressed what many Christians have known for a long time: that evolution helps us gain insight into the awesome creativity of God the Artist. Each time there is another scientific discovery I imagine God saying: “Great! I’m very pleased they now know that. What took them so long?” I imagine God also said that about some of Darwin’s insights. I belong to a church which has the motto that you mentioned in comment 81: Reformed and always reforming (though we don’t always live up to it). We’re often associated with evangelicals as well…and many, including me, would encourage you in this extended dialog to enhance the relationship between our Christian faith and beliefs and scientific endeavor…always reforming it. Keep up the good work, my friend.
March 16th, 2009 at 7:10 pm
Ken, Thank you for your thoughtful post. As an east coast evangelical, I also apologize for the way we have treated people – created in God’s image and so loved by Him. Matt 5:21. “…anyone who says to his brother, ‘Raca’…” We ask your forgiveness.
Jesus, thank you for your blood.
March 19th, 2009 at 5:02 pm
I recently had the opportunity to offer my evangelical apology in person … sort of. On the way to Ukraine as part of a short terms evangelical (Assemblies of God) missions team, I was in London for a few days, and stood over Darwin’s grave in Westminster Abbey. As a committed evangelical Christian AND an educated scientist, I paused to apologize on behalf of the evangelical community. It was a profound moment for me.
March 20th, 2009 at 9:28 am
Pastor Wilson,
(Sorry, I grew up with Jesse and Maja so calling you Ken would feel odd.)
I think you should read http://catholic.com/library/Galileo_Controversy.asp to better understand what happened with Galileo. It was not a case of science vs. religion, but the scientists of the day vs. Galileo and the religion of Galileo vs. Catholicism.
Religion has a very important part to play in science lest we begin destroying human life in the name of scientific advancement. Science also has an important part to play in religion so that we can better understand God’s creation. And for what Darwin did in this regard, I’m grateful.
March 25th, 2009 at 10:22 am
Wow, didn’t think I would end up on this page when I entered my study today. I do apologies to people that have been offended by Christians that have not shown the love of Christ in debate with evolutionist. I even tell my youth not to make fun of Hollywood “stars” as crazy and bad some of their choices might be, they are still people and we need to show them love.
Just one question Ken, as I have not read your writings to know your beliefs, do you believe in a literal account of Genesis?
April 7th, 2009 at 3:42 pm
I am coming into this rather late but as an evangelical Christian who happens to be working in the biological sciences I so appreciate this gesture. I’m always a tad bit wary of saying I’m a biologist because I am afraid of getting questions about whether evolution is real and if I think it’s real If I am really saved
So I concur and say “Sorry Chuck!”
April 11th, 2009 at 12:45 am
This spectacle of Evangelicals falling all over themselves to apologize to Charles Darwin for the way he has been treated by the church perplexes me. On the face o it, this seems like an excellent thing to do. But, what does such an apology imply? It seems like we’ve settled the whole matter in favor of “theistic evolutionism”. But on what basis? Have we become more informed, or are we just embarrassed at being identified as “Evangelicals” with those who have behaved badly in this controversy? Can we apologize for the way Darwin the man has been treated by the church while still insisting that Darwinism may be wrong? Are we after truth, or acceptability? (Having both would be ideal, but which is more important if you can’t have both?)
I appreciate Kevin’s remarks here (#174) as one who stands out from the rest, though I disagree with much of what he says. I think the Genesis account of creation is not a scientific account, but is a truthful and divinely inspired description of God’s intent and desires for creation, the fallenness (literal or figurative it’s still very real) of human nature, etc. I certainly think that one can be a good Christian and believe that God used darwinian evolution to bring about his creation. (This doesn’t mean that evolution is true. One can be a good Christian and be mistaken about many things.) But will we also insist one can be a good scientist while finding Darwinism to be an inadequate explanation for our origins? Such people are not treated kindly by the scientific establishment. Where do our apologies to Darwin leave scientists like Michael Behe (see his books, Darwin’s Black Box and The Edge of Evolution)? Should Behe apologize to Darwin too even though he’s not an Evangelical? Or does he deserve our support? Should Ben Stein (a Jew) also apologize for the his “Expelled” movie? Why or why not? (If Ken is going to tie belief in “static and special creation”–not the only alternative to darwinism in any case–to racism, slavery and the subjugation of women, can he blame Stein for seeing a natural connection between Darwinism and racism, eugenics and the Nazi Holocaust?) Do the people at the Access Research Network (www.arn.org) have anything to apologize for? I want to know, because I think all these people raise legitimate concerns and have been treated very badly and unfairly by the scientific establishment. And, I wonder, if Evangelicals are going to apologize to Darwin, are they also going to defend the rights and reputations of those who question his ideas and the way they are applied today and who honestly believe that the evidence points to the necessity of a Designer/Creator?
April 11th, 2009 at 12:51 pm
Comment on Paul’ post: I’m not generally posting comments debating evolution on this particular post, but I thought Paul’s was interesting so I post it and add my comments. First, I’d like to point out his openness to theistic evolution as a position that is acceptable within the Christian camp. He’s not convinced but he’s tolerant, and this I think is good. I agree with Paul’s view of Genesis that it is not written as science. I don’t think Behe is being terribly discriminated against for his views. Behe had and essay published in the New York Times (my sister told me, at least) and his book was published and is widely read. I read the book and Behe doesn’t offer any research or studies to provide evidence for an alternative to evolution. He simply critiques the conclusion of existing research. I think there would be money available–at the very least through private institutions–for direct research which could be done and made subject for public scrutiny.
So scientists like Behe have options. Of course, it’s difficult to prove a negative. So he has to do the hard work of coming up with an alternative hypothesis that can be studied, experiments designed and run, and data collected to offer supportive evidence or not for the hypothesis.
I haven’t seen the Stein DVD but if he is drawing historical causal connections between Darwin and racism, I think it would be more compelling if Stein were a serious historian interacting with a wide range of historians rather than an entertainer (whose religion, btw, is irrelevant.) I’ve read some of the 19th century evangelical response to Darwin and know that evangelical supporters of Darwin like Asa Gray, B.B. Warfield and James Orr agreed with Darwin that common ancestry would rule out a racist interpretation of human differences. I think one of Darwin’s scientific opponents at Harvard (Aggisse–sp?) had a special creation view of the races, which supported his racist views.
We could take a poll of those who oppose Darwin’s teachings and compare their views on race with those who support Darwin’s views. But that’s not a valid approach to establishing historical cause and effect either.
I’m very dubious of these historical arguments about Darwin’s teaching leading to racism, etc. when there is solid historical evidence that Darwin himself was a big opponent of slavery. But even more, I think by the same faulty logic, one can pin slavery and inequality of women on the Bible, rather than see the Bible as containing the message that eventually led to overturning slavery and supporting the equality of women. If it’s not a fair argument to make in one realm, we shouldn’t rely on it in another. Darwin avoided the use of the term “evolution” partly because it has a history that preceded scientific inquiry and he wasn’t happy with the things it was associated with.
What I like about Paul’s post, is the reasoned way he offers his views. These are matters than can be discussed, because he doesn’t treat someone who disagrees with him as a heretic. Paul allows for different ways of reading Genesis; he doesn’t claim that only one way is the orthodox way. I wish he were a little more sympathetic to the value of the apology, rather than viewing it as a “spectacle,” but one always likes others to give one the benefit of the doubt, and its not always forthcoming.
I think Christians should apologize for the things that they as a group have had a tendency to support; as a group American evangelicals haven’t had a tendency to be mean spirited etc toward Behe, Stein, and others. I think the Biblical principle is that we apologize for the things we have done wrong, or we take group responsibility for things our group has tended to get wrong.
April 22nd, 2009 at 12:23 pm
I apologize Charles. Blessings!
Peace!
Keith
May 25th, 2009 at 3:16 pm
I am an evangelical and an engineer. I am sorry for going along with the church crowd to malign scientists like Darwin when I was younger.
Thank you Ken, for leading by example!
July 28th, 2009 at 4:54 pm
As an evangelical Christian, I apologize to Charles Darwin for my youthful slander of his name and scientific findings.
August 11th, 2009 at 1:33 am
As a biologist and has been wondering for many years outside the door of Jesus, one of the major hurdles for me is about evolution and creation. Francis Collins and Ken’s thoughts bring me more confidence in joining the GOD’s family. I have been attending a church here in Ann Arbor and tried a couple of times to bring up this topic but was rejected by the pastor and other followers immediately in the church. A recent poll shows that only about 7% of top scientists in the US are religious. One of the reasons I believe is that the majority of both sides think that we are exclusive instead of inclusive. The harmony of religion and science would not only advance the science but also lead us to appreciate more how GOD create the universe and life. Ken, I may visit your church one day.
November 23rd, 2009 at 4:07 pm
I would like to add my name to this list as a public apology to the memory of Charles Darwin and for every person I’ve ever belittled or accused in the name of Jesus while discussing these matters. I will answer to God on judgment day for these actions, and I am sure I will be ashamed.