Subscribe to Posts
Origin of Species: An Evangelical Perspective
Some in my faith community can get a little testy when Charles Darwin’s name comes up. So when Carl Safina, my friend the atheist and ocean conservationist, told me that Jesus and Darwin were his two heroes, I decided it was time to read Darwin’s Origin of Species for myself. After all, I’ve often challenged those who have any prickly opinions about Christianity to temper said opinions by reading the gospels. Much can be learned by going to the source documents.
It took a while to finish Darwin’s classic–the man loved his Beetles!–but I came away charmed by Darwin’s warmth, his respect for critics in what would today be “the Intelligent Design crowd,” and the staggering breadth of his genius.
Clearly, Darwin did not set out to overturn the ruling paradigm of biology–that species were, like God, immutable. He recognized the power of nature’s selective mechanism with fear and trembling–reluctantly, in much the same way that I came to recognize the power of my rabbi, Jesus. He knew that this acknowledged mechanism–nature chooses winners and losers in the struggle for life and thus are new species endlessly spawned–would cause him much anguish, as indeed, it did. He took up the cross of this truth and followed it with grim anticipation of what awaited him.
Those who respect the scientific enterprise often regard the realm of faith as a foreign realm, and wonder why those who live there view scientists as strangers.
Darwin’s Gentle Approach
But Darwin himself models a different approach in Origin, one we could all learn from. He persuades the reader gently, as did the parable teller of old, leading from the known (the transforming power of a breeder’s selective eye) to the unknown (the transforming power of nature’s selective pressure.) He woos us to the truth he sees by kindness toward those who see things differently.
Darwin, unlike some of his successors, understood the compelling beauty of the notion that God–without the use of any means whatsoever–simply created each species whole and intact from scratch. It was, after all, his view for much of his life. And it was the view his dear wife held dearly for the wonder it stirred in her heart. Darwin understood, it seems, that it is a noble thing to hold nature in awe for whatever reason, and that those who stand in awe before her stand in awe together.
Darwin could refer to nature as a creation without condescension or contempt, even though the particular theory of special creation that he grew up with lost its luster in light of what he learned from careful observation of God’s creation. He didn’t treat those who didn’t see what he saw as fools, knowing how hard he had to work to see if for himself.
I came away from my encounter with Darwin through his book, aching for his spirit to return to our discourse regarding the origin of species. Year after year, the surveys remain essentially the same. Half the population rejects the broad outlines of evolutionary science, leaving them suspicious of science in general–dubious now of climate change, the safety of the H1N1 vaccine, and whatever else comes down the pike from the citadels of science.
If only my evangelical colleagues could approach the discourse regarding the origin of species with the spirit of Darwin–so close, in this respect, to the spirit of our master.
If only Darwin’s disciples could learn from their master how to teach their fellows: that respect for one’s listeners helps one to deliver one’s message; that one can be so right sometimes as to be wrong; that truth conveyed requires a mystery beyond all of our command: love–Darwin’s for his fellows, God’s for us, and ours for each other.
[Post Script: A few months ago, I did a post on Darwin's birthday. It was an apology to the memory of Darwin. If you'd like to sign on the apology, please do. Mostly it's been signed by Christians who regret the culture war approach so many of us have taken to evolutionary science. It's also been signed by some biologists who regret the attempt to fight fire with fire and wish to adopt a more respectful approach to matters of faith. Given the vitriol that such posts engender from those who view any effort to reach out across this culture divide as betrayal, I'll not be posting such comments on this blog post or the earlier one. These kinds of comments can be found anywhere you look on the Internet when the subject comes up.-Ken ]
Tags: carl safina, charles darwin, evolution, gospels, intelligent design, Jesus, Origin of Species, special creation
November 24th, 2009 at 5:58 pm
I just heard on NPR concerning this subject that there was a leading British Christian in Darwin’s time (Charles Finney?) who actually read his book and placed a recommendation on it, saying something to the effect that it would seem more wonderful that God would create life that could evolve on its own rather than life that required His constant attention and intervention to adapt to new envirnoments.
November 24th, 2009 at 10:03 pm
Joao, Yep, a number of 19th century evangelical pastors welcomed Darwin’s Origin. Including B.B. Warfied, father of the doctrine of biblical inerrancy. A lot of the clergy of the time were well informed about biology–they were the naturalists of their era (Darwin studied to be a Anglican priest); also many were active in breeding pigeons, dogs, horses, so they had a grasp of the power of man to select winners and losers and affect direction of the breeds. It wasn’t until the rise of American fundamentalism in early 20th century that evangelicals got diverted and made this a hot button issue. Here we are a hundred years later.
November 24th, 2009 at 11:28 pm
Ken,
While it isn’t where I’m at on this issue, I was impressed by Dinesh D’Souza’s chapter on evolution in “What’s So Great About Christianity.” He did an excellent job explaining what joao references above. If you haven’t read the book, I’d highly recommend it.
I do have to ask, what will it take for you to consider that climate change/global warming simply is not settled science? If you haven’t looked into it, what is being called “climate-gate” is worth taking a look at. One does not have to be an anti-science fundamentalist to be dubious about climate change. A large and growing number of scientists are themselves skeptical. And “climate-gate” seems to show that there is more than just a pure search for truth at work within the ranks of the climate change proponents.
November 25th, 2009 at 10:12 am
“In the beginning God…”. Beyond that I see plenty of Biblical room for Darwin and Science to have fun deducing “How”. As a factual side note for simpleminded and easily amused souls like me: Darwin Road leads directly to HELL; Take D-19 North out of Dexter, MI and the sign proclaiming “HELL” with a directional arrow appears just before Darwin Road. (Continuing north will take you to God’s Country — Northern Michigan)
November 25th, 2009 at 12:13 pm
Brian, I think I am with you on this. I am at a point where as an engineer (sort of a scientist), I really am not convinced of the certainty of global warming being wholly human induced, and this is not at all due to my religious beliefs, but die to my scientific training.
It’s just that I keep hearing all sorts of conflicting data on this and the history of this issue also causes me to take what I hear about impending doom with a grain of salt.
It just seems that so many of the dire warnings we have heard in the past never came to fruition, like:
- the upcoming ice age feared about in the 70’s.
- we are running out of oil, also from the 70’s.
- the Earth has never been this hot and with this much Co2 in the atmosphere.
- methane from cow ‘farts’ is adding to global warming.
Even the CO2 being classified as a ‘greenhouse gas’ is suspect to me. I understand water vapor is more of a green house gas and yet nobody seems to be panicking about that.
Anyway, short of starting another discussion, I just am not convinced enough to panic.
On the other hand, though, I do think that money talks and up to now, some very good technologies have not been developed that could reduce waste and inefficiencies, such as solar power (free), wind and other creative, cleaner ways to produce energy.
So I am all for the funding and development of these technologies, especially to replace coal and oil based energy sources and I definitely support and encourage waste reduction and pollution reduction.
Since this whole environmental movement has started I have paid much more attention to how much energy and resources I use, by turning off lights when not using them, reducing my usage of heat and A/C at home and even planning on actually looking at fuel economy on the next vehicle I buy, realizing I drive a lot, both as transportation and also because I just love cars. I also have been replacing my bulbs (as they burn out) with fluorescents, but even these are suspect due to the mercury vapor that they contain.
So there I am, doing what I see as sensible due to my understanding that waste is not Godly and that I life in a waste prone society that needs to conserve, but not really buying all I hear on TV.
November 25th, 2009 at 2:40 pm
All very good Ken. A recent person I know very well said that they can’t believe that colliding particles started things in motion. I am a huge advocate on either side of the aisle, but I felt I got a good word. I said how difficult is it to perceive that a sperm and egg collide and bring life. 2 cells, then 4, then two arms, two legs, brain waives, a face that only a mother could love, personality, etc. Life is fascinating and should be explored. We have answers, but all of us only know in part; but if we can bring our parts together maybe the mosaic can be made even more beautiful; not for knowledge sake, that just puffs up.
On a picky point (sorry), I am not sure I see the relationship between the following: “leaving them suspicious of science in general–dubious now of climate change, then safety of the H1N1 vaccine.”
I don’t think Darwin was hoping to make Origin of Species and NY Times best seller…
Peace and rest during the holidays.
November 27th, 2009 at 3:37 pm
Joao, You haven’t done your homework on this one, I’m afraid. But you’re taking the appropriate steps nevertheless. If I had to chose one, I’d chose the latter. On the science of climate change: let’s go out on a limb and say that neither you nor I with our respective educational backgrounds (your bachelor’s degree in engineering, mine in nursing) have the capacity to independently verify the climate science studies. That being the case, why would the Bush administration, which had every incentive to deny climate science, eventually come around to accepting it? And why would India and China, the nations with the most to lose by efforts to reduce carbon emissions also not deny the validity of the science? I think the most likely answer is that the science, taken as a whole, is pretty compelling.
November 27th, 2009 at 8:07 pm
Ken,
Do you read any dissenting information regarding climate change/global warming? It’s out there-and from reputable sources. It seems only those who agree have properly ‘done their homework’. That’s pretty much the attitude those caught up in ‘climate-gate’ have been shown to have, as well. Of course, they just ignore their ‘homework’ that conflicts with their preferred outcome.
November 28th, 2009 at 10:25 am
I have questions, since we are discussing the theory of climate change and its causes. In Ken’s response to Joao, he refers to the political side to validate climate change. We know that politics and religion never mix well. Why do we think that politics and science are any different? Whatever good science is mixed into the climate change theory, it is most certainly tainted by the political climate of the day. The climate-gate emails are the best proof that scientists are letting politics affect their science.
The hysteria associated with environmentalism by the uneducated masses, and the educated climate warming crowd, is quite a spectacle. Jesus said the truth will set you free, and someone said in science that the data will set you free, but there will be no freedom of thought as long as we let politics affect our pursuit of truth or science.
Ken; thanks for recommending Friedman’s book on leadership. The Imaginative Gridlock, Society in Regression, and Data Junkyards and Data Junkies chapters, certainly have plenty of application to this discussion.
November 28th, 2009 at 10:57 am
Brian, By “homework” I meant reading at least a summary of the IPCC report on climate change. This is the gold standard, the report that skeptics are responding to. There is an excellent summary (about 30 pages, with graphs, etc.) and I’ve found that when I talk with those who dispute the science of climate change, I rarely (can’t recall a single case) find someone who has actually read even a summary of the IPCC report. For example, have you? Also, by homework, I mean reading the position of the largest Christian church (Roman Catholic) on climate change. This seems to me to be a reasonable place to start for a Christian who is trying to understand climate change. I actually get quite a bit of the skeptical stuff sent to me, and yes I have reviewed much of this. There is also quite a bit reported on the radio and in the media.
(For example, I’ve read the reports on the emails between English climate scientists.)
But Brian, I appeal to you as a fellow evangelical. Our job as evangelicals is to bring the gospel to those who haven’t yet received it. Do an informal poll in your congretation. What would you estimate to be the percentage (roughly) of those who don’t accept the majority view of scientists that 1) the earth is warming, and 2) there is a very high probability that the warming is caused by human activity (controlling for other factors–which is what climate scientists do.)
I would guess that a very substantial majority in your poll would not accept the majority scientific view that the recent [past 150 years] climate change is caused (substantially) by human activity, in all probability [90% probability according to most recent IPCC report.]
This would be the case in a typical evangelical church.
There is in fact, a higher concentration of skepticism regarding climate change among American evangelicals. My thesis has been that this higher rate of skepticism is fueled by cultural factors and not by a higher scientific knowledge base in this population. (Which is not to say that all evangelicals who are skeptics have been affected by these cultural factor, just that on the whole these cultural factors are very powerful.)
The result however is not good for the gospel making headway in the unreached people groups of the United STates–the people who don’t go to evangelical churches, where the gospel is preached, partly because they are not attracted to the culture that prevails in these churches. I don’t mean the culture of people loving JEsus and wanting to serve him. I mean the culture that is marked by strong political leanings in one direction, a tendency toward skepticism regarding the validity of mainstream science, etc.
They pick up the fact that if they bring their views on climate change (it’s a real problem and we should do something about it) yhey will be a distinct minority in an evangelical church. If they care a great deal about the environment, they feel that their passion will not be viewed sympathetically in many evangelical churches. These kinds of cultural issues are obstacles to the gospel.
By the way, I commend you for your efforts to make room for people who care about the environment. You’ve done more in this regard than most pastors in your position.
November 29th, 2009 at 2:22 am
Ken.
I will certainly continue to study up on this climate change subject to see if my skepticism is indeed valid. But just because the majority of ‘experts’ believes something does not mean it’s true. Most scientists were skeptical of the theory of plate tectonics when it was 1st presented in the 50’s, for example.
But again, the driving force for my skepticism has nothing to do with my faith (that would be ridiculous), I actually find it offensive if a believer places such unrelated issues as evolution, creation, smoking, political parties, etc as stumbling blocks or barriers to anyone seeking Jesus, but does that mean I must accept the ‘majority’ view on some issue just to make the gospel attractive?
I think part of sharing the gospel is also being honest, and I cannot in good conscience deny personal opinions just to ‘welcome’ people to the church or tow some popular party line.
If a newcomer wants to judge me because I don’t live as ‘green’ as they think I should, well, I will still welcome them and rejoice of they connect with God, but will certainly not change my lifestyle to fit their worldview.
Is that ungodly thinking?
November 30th, 2009 at 9:42 pm
Brian B. (Is this the Brian who is also known as “Chinapants”?) – I totally understand where you’re coming from because I also have scientist friends who’ve done their research and are still skeptical about how large a part humans play in the earth’s warming. I’m a pastor and not a scientist, so while I lean toward thinking humans do play a significant role, I don’t *really* know. What I always say is: the bottom line is stewardship.
As the church corporate, I think we can talk about environmental issues in a way that respects those who feel the human factor of global warming is a major moral issue, as well as those who think it’s a load of bunk (which includes my family and many friends). Regardless of how we feel about carbon emissions and the rest of it, we can appeal to people on the level of preserving the beauty of God’s created earth; of preserving the animals he carefully crafted; of using resources in ways that benefit not only our country, but are used to transform the world and lift others up out of poverty – because it’s the right thing to do.
To Ken’s point, I think it’s important to create a church atmosphere where people who do feel strongly about environmental issues feel welcome. I’ve run in evangelical circles where it’s acceptable to make fun of “those liberals” and “those environmental whacks.” I tend toward being one of “those liberals” and “those whacks,” and it makes me (as a pastor and missionary!) uncomfortable to be in communities where mocking those views is acceptable … so I can’t imagine what it would be like to come in from the outside and feel that same attitude directed toward my views. I probably wouldn’t come back.
November 30th, 2009 at 10:26 pm
I think that there is a big connection in the evangelical community between disbelief in evolution and disbelief in global warming.
This obviously is connected because of theological
issues and cultural issues within the evangelical community and distrust of scientific evidence. I believe if you could take a poll you would find that evangelical believers like me who believe that God could have used evolution to create this magnifacent world. These same people would also believe the scientific evidence that global warming is happening and partially caused by man.
November 30th, 2009 at 10:29 pm
Ken,
I had previously perused the summary of the IPCC report. With your question, I have gone back and read much (not all) of the summary. It seems to me the media have been quite thorough in reporting on the IPCC report, as little of the information seemed new.
To be clear, I have never taken a position that warming isn’t happening. I don’t think I know enough to make such a claim. But I am of the view that it isn’t settled. There is a lot of reputable dissent that simply doesn’t get the press it deserves. I also am of the opinion that if it is happening the draconian measures recommended to combat it are misguided. Bjorn Lomborg has an excellent book, “Cool It”, that accepts that warming is happening but demonstrates how misguided the proposed solutions largely are…and suggests ways of dealing with climate change that have a much better benefit for the cost.
Regarding the church I lead-I honestly don’t know what the percentages would be. My guess is that it would be tilted more toward skepticism but my suspicion is that it would not be drastically so. What I do know is that I’m unaware of a single person in our congregation that doesn’t believe Christians should be concerned with caring for God’s creation. The common ground that is available is along the lines of conservation, not using more than you need, etc, etc. If environmentalists come into evangelical churches that can agree with them on that point, then it would seem to me there is enough common ground that they should not feel their passion is an unsympathetic one. It seems unreasonable to me to suggest, as it seems you do, that unless a church can accept the view that global warming is a fact and will result in catastrophic consequences for the planet, that we create obstacles to the gospel.
Where would that stop? We must accept global warming to reach environmentalists? We must accept evolution to reach Darwinists? The examples could go on, but I think this takes Paul’s approach of becoming all things to all men to save some a bit beyond what was meant.
Thanks for the commendation of our meager efforts in the church I lead. While they are meager, I do believe it to be a place where skeptics and believers-on global warming and other topics including faith itself-are welcomed, respected, and loved.
So what do you think about the so-called “climate-gate?” It seems like a significant story to me.
Sorry this is so long.
December 1st, 2009 at 6:41 pm
Brian,
“Where would that stop? We must accept global warming to reach environmentalists? We must accept evolution to reach Darwinists? The examples could go on, but I think this takes Paul’s approach of becoming all things to all men to save some a bit beyond what was meant.”
Your assumption seems to be (tell me if I’m reading you correctly) that “we Christians” are skeptical about global warming we don’t accept Darwin’s observations about the origin of species as legitimate. I think that is a very common assumption in American Christianity, of the variety that is called evangelical. I do think that the assumption is a problem, and it has the effect of creating church environments that are not effective in reaching people who don’t accept the assumptions. I don’t see these issues (global warming, evolution) as touching on the core beliefs of Christianity. We’re not talking about anything in the Apostle’s Creed. Apostle’s creed Christians (I am one) don’t see a conflict with Darwin’s view of the natural mechanism involved in the origin of the species, or with the inclination to accept the science on global warming as it is presented by the IPCC. So I think it might actually be a perfect application of Paul’s exhortation to be all things to all people. OF course that doesn’t mean you adopt a view of evolution or climate change such as I have just to reach people. But it does mean you don’t treat skepticism about evolution or climate change as part of the received wisdom of the faith.
December 1st, 2009 at 8:23 pm
Ken,
No, I don’t think I’m making the assumption you suggest. I would agree climate change doesn’t touch on the core beliefs of Christianity and I don’t know many people who would argue it does…maybe none. But Ken, you know many evangelicals absolutely believe that evolution touches on core beliefs of Christianity. And all I’m really trying to say is what you pointed out, “that doesn’t mean you adopt a view of evolution or climate change such as [I] have just to reach people.” That’s all I’m saying. They can’t do that. You say they shouldn’t. But much of your writing seems to suggest they should. I’m just saying Christians don’t have to give up their sincerely held beliefs on such matters, especially ones they do believe touch on core beliefs. I’d like to write more on this, but I don’t want to take too much space…
With respect, I answered your question about reading the IPCC summary. But you haven’t answered mine. What do you think of the ‘climate-gate’ story? A non-story to you? If so, why? Suppression of contrary data seems like a big deal to me.
December 2nd, 2009 at 6:02 pm
Ken said:
‘OF course that doesn’t mean you adopt a view of evolution or climate change such as I have just to reach people. But it does mean you don’t treat skepticism about evolution or climate change as part of the received wisdom of the faith.’
I loved how succintly that is put.
I wonder if it is human nature to add complication to the simple gospel message.
It starts with nothing simpler than the thief on the cross simply asking Jesus to enter His kingdom.
I wonder what is known about this thief. Maybe a study of whatever we know about him may yield the most barrier free method of pursuing God.
All I can see is the thief’s realization of his own sin when he yelled at the other thief, admitting they deserved to be there, but Jesus did not. The belief that Jesus had the keys to heaven, humility to ask Jesus for a ‘pass’.
But noooo we as humans love to add to that simple exchange. My dad always said that legalism is very much a demonic phenomenon, as it keeps people from Jesus, which I suppose is Satan’s greatest accomplishment.
December 3rd, 2009 at 7:22 pm
I wonder if Jesus feels discouraged when people go overboard on temporal issues. Afterall, He was pretty blunt about saying: LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, MIND, SOUL & STRENGTH. AND LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF”. And then there are those Great Commisions @ the end of the Gospels to go reproduce, telling the good news about HIM to the ends of the earth.
Didn’t Don call getting bogged down in anything that is not of eternal value “Decorating your Hotel Room” when your treasure is all you learn about God in humble, obedient relatedness to Him and others, guided by the Bible (Paul and Jesus make a big deal about Scripture’s centrality in living faith and growth)?
I often think of a sign I saw on a Jewish faculty member’s door when I was a med student: “AN IDEA IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PEOPLE WHO BELIEVE IN IT.” I am not sure why he put the sign up, but I often have to remind myself that what is said & done in the name of Christ or Christianity may not be at all reflective of Christ’s true nature or intentions. People are complex and needy and almost always driven to see things or make others see things through their own particular frame.
But having said that about believers, it is oh-so-true of humans who exhibit a need to deny God’s capacity for infinite creativity, just because it is beyond our puny comprehension.
WHY MUST SO MANY “SMART PEOPLE” INSIST THAT IF THEY CAN’T UNDERSTAND CREATION, THEN PEOPLE LESS ACADEMIC THAN THEMSELVES “CAN’T” EITHER?
TO ME, WORSHIP IS TELLING GOD: “YOU MADE ME / US….
I / WE DID NOT MAKE YOU….
THANK YOU!
PRAISE YOUR NAME!
YOU DO SUCH NICE WORK….
I DON’T GET IT, BUT I WOULD BE GLAD TO TRY… WHAT WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO UNDERSTAND?”
I’ll grant that the strange concept / experience of Christ’s divinty does require the supernatural work of the Holy Spirit/ i am in sympathy with people who have not yet met Christ and are totally grossed out by the “blood sacrifice for sin thing”. At least they “get” the seriousness of what it cost Christ. Now if we could only keep it in mind ourselves…. AND manifest the LOVE that Christ has that draws us & would draw them, provided we kept our eyes on the “prize”, as St. Paul so eleoquently describes it (Phil. 3:7 ff)
Have a blessed Advent,
Ellen
PS
WRT heavy-duty documents that teams of experts churn out: if they are useful, fine.
But Solomon cautioned against getting too wrapped up in it all. Or being overly smug about it.
And he was the smartest, most ingenious / productive breeder, botanist, poet, archtiect, etc. ever born…
You only go around once,
Live with gusto.
(These are actually beer slogans, but maybe they are wise in their own ways, too…0
Ellen
December 6th, 2009 at 4:13 pm
Ken,
I find the whole University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit’s (CRU) recent fiasco very disturbing. Not only did the scientists change facts and figures, they also plotted to ruin the reputations of skeptic scientists and editors of scientific journals. They covered up the fact that their findings actually showed the earth cooling since 1960. Then, conveniently, all the hard copies of all the data has “mysteriously” disappeared.
Much of the primary temperature data for the IPCC report came directly from the data collected by theCRU. How can we put any confidence in a report with data that cannot be confirmed in any way now? That’s called blind faith, not science. I can’t imagine that Darwin would approve!
December 23rd, 2009 at 1:23 am
happylad, i find the whole CRU issue to be red herring- it has already been shown that countless statements from emails were taken out of context, misquoted, and misapplied. Many scientists have publicly censured phil jones for his bad judgment by attempting to keep the weak papers out by force- rather than letting the weak papers be presented, and then openly challenged. that’s what science does, it is ever-correcting, that is the very foundation of the peer review and research process.
nothing in the leaked emails challenges the science-its all about perception, as nearly every legitimate scientific body has referred to it as a smear campaign.
December 30th, 2009 at 7:25 pm
MV – I noticed that too – that Darwin Road leads to Hell, Michigan! I wondered if it was a coincidence or not?!