Subscribe to Posts
advice to young pastors: listen to billy graham on evolution
If you’re a young pastor in the United States, you’ve grown up with the culture wars. You may be sick to death of them, but you may also find them hard to shake. In the middle of the noise, let me offer this counsel: don’t let the loudest voices intimidate you. Do the work of an evangelist. Keep your heart open to the heart of God for those who are the outside of faith looking in. Like Billy Graham, in fact, who in his later years has had some pretty surprising things to say.
Like this, on evolution: “I don’t think there’s any conflict at all between Science today and the Scriptures. I think we have misinterpreted the Scriptures many times and we’ve tried to make the Scriptures say things they weren’t meant to say. I think that we have made a mistake by thinking the Bible is a scientific book. The Bible is not a book of science. The Bible is a book of Redemption, and of course, I accept the Creation story. I believe that God did create the universe. I believe that God created man, and whether it came by an evolutionary process and at a certain point He took this person or being and made him a living soul or not, does not change the fact that God did create man….whichever way God did it makes no difference as to what man is and man’s relationship to God.” (Billy Graham: Personal Thoughts of a Public Man, by David Frost and Fred Bauer)
Yes, that’s Billy Graham saying the Bible is not a book of science and that it is not incompatible with evolution. Let me restate that for clarity: Billy Graham says evolution and Scripture are compatible. We all know that in many churches, were a pastor say such a thing from the pulpit, he might be looking for a different job.
All over the nation pastors who see it as Billy Graham sees it stay quiet about it, because pastors do not enjoy stirring up conflict. And this, of course, is at the expense of the gospel finding a hearing among the many people outside of faith who don’t have a gripe with evolutionary science. Which is to say, modern science.
I’m guessing that Billy Graham hasn’t written books on this topic. It came up in an interview late in his life. He has so much credibility that no one is going to cancel a Billy Graham crusade because of this quote.
The challenge in pastoral ministry is always to gain and maintain Billy Graham’s heart for the gospel; that is to say his heart for people hearing the gospel who have not had access to it. If you don’t lean toward the outsider, the church won’t. And if you do, you may have a more difficult job in the church.
So this will test your mettle. And it’s only one of the radioactive issues you will have to wrestle with.
By wrestle, I mean study. Read books that are outside your comfort zone. All the major issues facing the church today–the hot button issues, the culture war issues–have a strong science component. Are you willing to read some science? I mean science written by scientists, not Christians leaders, pastors, or lobbyists, who are critiquing the scientists.
I’m guessing you didn’t go into pastoral ministry because you love science. You probably preferred religion classes in your college days. But John Wesley exhorted the circuit riders to read books, lots of them, and to include science in their reading.
If you don’t study up on this issue, you will be subject to the prevailing winds of the culture, especially the church culture. The loudest voices will prevail, at the expense of the gospel.
If previous posts in this blog are any indication, the angst will be evident in the comments. Reading the comments you might say to yourself, “Why would I want to step into this hornet’s nest?” You should have considered that before becoming a pastor. Unless your heart beats like Billy Graham’s heart beats, you might want to consider a change in your line of work.
Tags: billy graham, church, culture wars, evolution, John Wesley, pastoral ministry, reading, science, science and the evangelical mission, scripture, study
August 10th, 2010 at 12:39 pm
Interesting and very thoughtful quote from Billy Graham! My surprise at hearing this from him shows how easily we label people with the simple categories of “conservative & liberal”. Reminds me to not assume we all have to fit into one of the two categories! We also try to make interpreting the Bible a simple process, but it’s actually pretty complex! Especially with modern issues!
We’ve been talking about the “Good News” really being good news for scientists too. For too long it’s been bad news for scientists, when it should be news of hope (and honor for their careers!).
August 10th, 2010 at 4:46 pm
Thank you so much!
I’m an undergraduate in chemical engineering right now. I really enjoy science study and am trying to love the Lord. It is so good to hear more of the Christian community in support of science. It is true that scientists are arrogant, but so are we.
For me I think of science as the study of the creation. Then maybe if you like studying the story of the God, maybe you will be blown away by the self sufficient machine that God put into motion. It will surely cause you to worship when you look at quantum mechanics and it makes zero sense. God invented that. We get to investigate that.
A great book marrying science and the story of creation is written by a prominent professor at MIT!
http://www.amazon.com/Science-God-Convergence-Scientific-Biblical/dp/076790303X
there is a link.
I think this book is great and am in no way affiliated with the author or the publisher. Just think that this book is a phenomenal work of both theology and scientific discovery.
God bless your studies
August 11th, 2010 at 12:01 pm
Ken you said:
“All the major issues facing the church today–the hot button issues, the culture war issues–have a strong science component”.
You said “All” and “have a strong science component”.
Would you say the hot button issue of homosexuality has a strong science component as well?
August 11th, 2010 at 3:21 pm
science is a disciplined and methodical way of sensing “what is”; it’s a way of seeing beyond what our assumptions and lenses allow in; it is not perfect, of course, as it is a method created by humans, but it is an attempt to carefully see-discern what is; so yes it is helpful in all the hot-button issues, including matters of sexuality
August 11th, 2010 at 8:42 pm
Nice article.
Elisabeth McNinch, here, here.
Jeffrey Davis, amazing that we’re not tracing Engineering through a mind blowing series of chem structures so diverse (say isomers and other DNA backbone equivalents) not restricted to the examples before us. Chemical possibilities alone aren’t probabilities, but goofing around with chemistries for harsh environments (Si Si-C stuff) or even halogenated (say an F component for an analog DNA backbone), mixed with Arnold Swcharza-enzymes to do the catalytic bench presses – the Engineering possibilities seem so endless (unlimited is the biological concept) that I can’t help think that the possibilities bleed to probabilities – somewhere. Or, sometime. Collins sees our current example as the “Language of God.” Think of the unlimited alternatives to this transcription (non-Nucleic acid, non-protein system) – our current example is just one language in the chem-soup sea of a larger and potential chemical glossolalia … Amazing, really. Mind boggling to trace the mind of the Engineer … way too much for me. But, fun.
Cheers in your studies ..
August 11th, 2010 at 8:49 pm
Ken – p.s. I’m in my goofing around mode, so I’m thinking that Billy Graham is mystically hard-wired to meet Ken Miller. And how couldn’t they love each other? Affectionately ..
August 14th, 2010 at 3:02 pm
1 day to God is a thousand years or is it a 100k years. I dont knovv. God is God and I am not.
If God vvants to to create the vvorld in his ovvn 7 days, vvho am i to argue. And vvhat is 7days?
I thought the Science of God book vvas very interesting in explaining that background radiation dating explains the 7 days of creation. But is it just another man’s explanation of vvhat God only really understands or just lets us peak on vvhat he really did.
August 14th, 2010 at 6:56 pm
Jim, I read Science of God several years ago. As I recall he tends to read Gen. 1 as science and does some creative work to reconcile the two languages (of Genesis and science.) I prefer to acknowledge that Genesis 1 is not intended to be read as science. Like Billy.
August 16th, 2010 at 8:20 pm
Is Genesis 1 intended to be read as history?
Those who want to incorporate Darwinian Evolution into Scripture answer me this: Were Adam and Eve literal historical figures?
August 17th, 2010 at 1:03 am
On the subject of science as it relates to issues of human sexuality, particularly homosexuality, here is a book:
http://www.amazon.com/Ex-gays-Longitudinal-Religiously-Mediated-Orientation/dp/083082846X
As much as psychology is a “science” this book is scientific. It is not easy to read. There is little or no fluff. It is basically the summary report of a longitudinal psychological study of participants in Exodus-like ministries. Probably challenging to both sides of the culture war.
August 18th, 2010 at 11:01 pm
Why would anyone listen to Billy Graham on evolution? He obviously doesn’t understand the theory very well if he doesn’t see a conflict with Christianity, or belief in a deity of any kind.
How does a God command His followers to take care of the poor and the weak while he set up a system that does the opposite? Is the Vineyard now pushing the “clock-maker-God?” How do things that “reproduce according to their kinds” turn into other things?
I can understand being tired of the “everyone who doesn’t accept evolution is a neanderthal” mentality but while physicists and astronomers are seeing purpose in the cosmos and finding God at an unprecedented rate how is it that pastors are rushing to be the johnny-come-latelys on the random chance bandwagon?
I don’t disagree with the statement that the Bible is not a science book – it certainly is not and was never intended to be – but evolution is the atheists alternative to creation – they are not compatible unless you do terrible things to the God that the Bible presents.
August 19th, 2010 at 1:12 am
It appears the way you’ve shaped this discussion is that anyone who would have angst in their response to this post are but “prevailing winds of the church culture” or “the intimidating loud voice.” I also get this sense of, if Billy Graham said it, you can’t just ignore it. We’re talkin’ Billy Graham here.
I can still respect Billy Graham for who he is and disagree with him on a subject, which I do here. I think one of the true prevailing winds of the church culture is the way we establish our heroes. We’re either all in or all out. We elevate some to such a high stature to where we must agree with them simply on the basis of reputation; on who they are. There’s much to be said about reputation, but there’s more to be said about each person being persuaded in their own mind as to what they believe, and using the whole of Scripture to help us interpret the Scripture. This isn’t the first thing I’ve heard Billy say that’s given me angst, but I respect him for the man of God that he is. My faith or beliefs are not shattered because I’ve put him in such high regard that I must accept everything he says or be shot out of the sky if he says something that is not true.
You also seem to indicate that real science lies outside of the Christian community and not within it. And anyone within who argues that the Bible is science is coming from a biased point of view. You’ve indicated in this and previous posts that those who are not open to evolution are perhaps too narrow minded, to sheltered by their Christianity, that they cannot think objectively about such things. I just think it’s important to establish that Christians who do not believe in evolution in any form are not little birds back at the nest waiting to swallow whatever worms mommy brings back to them. To open the door to evolution and the scriptures being compatible has tremendous ramifications theologically and practically on what the gospel really is, and to say that the Bible is not a book of science opens the door to a much broader interpretation of not only the passages that do speak to science, but the Bible as a whole.
I believe I was fearfully and wonderfully made in God’s image, created and formed in the womb by Creator God as a human being. On what basis would I have a need to go back and reinterpret scripture through the eyes of evolutionary science? I certainly don’t think it’s for the sake of the gospel, but rather a compromise of it when you consider the whole of Scripture, using all of the Bible to help us interpret the Bible.
August 19th, 2010 at 9:10 am
Good question, Trevor.
Ken, were Adam and Eve literal historical figures?
August 19th, 2010 at 7:54 pm
John,
I was quoting Graham on Scripture, more than on evolution–that Scripture is not to be read as if it were written in the language-genre of modern (science the scientific approach hadn’t been invented at the time of its writing.)
As the question about things reproducing “according their kinds”. Actually evolution does not say that things don’t reproduce according to kind. Parents give birth to offspring that are remarkably similar, with only minor variances from generation to generation. Evolution says that these minor variations accumulate in the gene pool over long periods of time such that over time a new species population develops.
With respect to the “randomness” of evolution. Actually only one mechanism of evolutionary process is random–and that is the random mutations that allow variability that allows nature to select for advantageous traits. Much about evolutionary process is not at all random. Plus what does random mean except that it cannot be predicted in advance?
This does not rule out purpose on the part of God, who can absolutely work through processes that we consider random.
I think it’s important to learn what evolutionary science actually teaches (how the process actually works) before declaring it incompatible with SCripture.
As you may know, B.B. Warfied, the father of the modern “biblical inerrancy” doctrine (a contemporary of Darwins) also though that Darwin’s theory of natural selection made good sense and was not incompatible with Scripture. He was familiar with artificial selection as a horse breeder, so natural selection as Darwin taught it (Warfield actually read Origin of Species) made sense to him.
I’ve found that many Christians who think evolution is incompatible with Scripture have learned evolution from those who don’t accept it, and are not well versed in what it does and doesn’t say.
Thanks for your comments. And by the way, Vineyard, being a centered set movement doesn’t have a policy on this issue so far as I know. I suspect my views are in the minority, in fact, among Vineyard pastors.
August 19th, 2010 at 8:31 pm
Trevor, I believe the Bible comes to us in many different literary genres, which need to be distinguished as a primary principle of interpretation. Poetry is not to be interpreted as narrative; Proverbs not to be interpreted as Law, etc.
The gospels are written in historical narrative genre. They present themselves as sourced in eyewitness testimony that at one time at least (while the witnesses were alive) could be verified. They attempt to connect with other historical events (Roman procurators, Emperors, etc.) They are written in a realistic fashion without reliance on elements of fable.
I think it would be very difficult to make the same case for Genesis 1-3. Genesis 1 is clearly written in the form of a Hebrew poem, with parallelism, repeated refrains. The NIV translation uses the indentation of Hebrew poetry to indicate this.
Genesis 2 and 3 don’t have the marks of historical narrative either. Adam means “human” inferring a representative-figurative quality to Adam. There are obvious contradictions between the sequence of creation in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 which would have been recognized by ancient readers, inferring that the precise order of events was not important as it would be in historical narrative. There are obvious problems that arise when it is treated as historical narrative–including things like the children of Adam and Eve having to have had sex with each other to procreate. The rivers noted in Genesis 2 could not be located (except the Euphrates and Tigris.) There is no known place on earth that is being guarded by angels, barring human entrance. God is presented as kneeling in the dirt to fashion Adam from the dirt. I think this is a clear cut case of figurative language and would be recognized as such widely, including in the ancient world.
But this, of course, is just my humble opinion. It has the advantage of allowing many people who are well versed in the modern scientific method from having to chose between what is known scientifically and what can be known in other reliable ways through this portion of Scripture. When an approach to Scripture has the effect of keeping millions of thoughtful people from accepting Jesus, I think there is a higher burden of proof required for its adoption. This is why the world’s greatest evangelist made a point of saying that Genesis account of origins does not need to be read as modern science.
But, hey, these are matters over which sincere believers may respectfully disagree.
August 19th, 2010 at 10:42 pm
Thanks for the response Ken, but you have made my point for me. You are missing the significance of the term random, especially as Darwin intended. If there is any purpose at all you do not have randomness; that is the difference between “artificial selection” and “natural selection”. Random chance and purposeful intent are not compatible. “Appearing to us to be random” is not part of the theory of evolution, rather it is just wishful thinking on the part of anyone trying to achieve a compromise where it logically can’t exist.
Charles made his intent very clearly in the intro to his book in that he is offering an alternative to belief in a creator. As far as learning what the theories of evolution “actually state,” I am much more interested in the theories of gravity. I opted out of teaching Biology this coming school year to focus on Physical Science with our incoming class of freshmen. This argument to me is just old; but the evolution evangelism just seems so out of place to me I had to comment.
My personal thought is that Darwin’s theory is just a remnant of 19th century thinking that is headed for the scrap pile (and I am not alone in the science world in that). String theory is cutting edge (especially multiple dimensions); why don’t you encourage young pastors to get involved in science that rocks, instead of getting tangled in old cobwebs?
August 19th, 2010 at 11:00 pm
I have an undergraduate degree in physics (from a secular institution), so I’ve been very exposed to Darwinian evolution from Darwinian evolutionists.
Given that we have had decades of Darwinian evolution and millions/billions of years preached in the public (as well as the private) school system, and given that the vast majority of college/university scientists enthusiastically embrace Darwinian evolution, it is not surprising that even spiritually mature Christians want to compromise Scripture with evolution in this sense. Many sincere and well-meaning believers (including me at one time) have taken this erroneous approach to God’s Word.
Likewise, because of our ignorance, most of us, in most areas of science, do defer to the scientific “experts” when it comes to their fields. Medicine, engineering, aeronautics, computer science, etc.—we’ve all seen and lived the advances in these sciences. We’ve grown to trust the “experts.” So it is not surprising that when it comes to Darwinian evolution many would yield the same trust to the “experts” when it comes to the science of beginnings.
However, as author Roger Patterson puts it, “To help us understand that science has practical limits, it is useful to divide science into two different areas: operational science and historical (origins) science. Operational science deals with testing and verifying ideas in the present and leads to the production of useful products like computers, cars, and satellites. Historical (origins) science involves interpreting evidence from the past and includes the models of evolution and special creation. Recognizing that everyone has presuppositions that shape the way they interpret the evidence is an important step in realizing that historical science is not equal to operational science.”
As evidence of this, it is interesting to note that a person can operate (not necessarily teach, sadly) in ANY field of science, from anesthesiology to zoology, and COMPLETELY REJECT Darwinian evolution.
Also, natural selection is not Darwinian evolution. Natural selection does not create new genetic information. In other words, natural selection, which we can see in action today, is not a mechanism for one kind of creature changing into another. Nothing in science that we can see and test reveals this.
August 19th, 2010 at 11:42 pm
I will be repeating myself to some, but I would like to reiterate that this dichotomy between creation and evolution seems to me to be a north american phenomenon.
There are also believers in other nations, strong, dedicated, bible lovin’, born again christians, who see no problem with evolution in general.
Sure, it is a THEORY, and as such it is a ‘living thing’ in that it is itself subject to evolution.
I for one, have never heard a good explanation for the lack of transitional fossils in the record, showing how, for example, a fish evolved into amphibians, reptiles, on to mammals, or the lack of reliability of carbon dating, fossils that have been found of 19th century artifacts, etc.
So while I have always loved science and see no issue with believing scripture AND evolution in general, I am open to the possibility that evolution may not be exactly as it is currently believed. I think both sides of this culture war issue have it wrong in different areas.
But roughly quoting my grandfather, who was a scholar and a minister.
‘These discussions, while being sometimes stimulating, have absolutely ZERO importance when it comes to matters of one’s soul and its need of Jesus’ work on the cross for salvation.’
August 20th, 2010 at 9:15 am
trevor, My point in this post was not primarily to argue for evolution. As a scientific layman, I find the evidence for evolution compelling. But my point more had to do with the nature of Scripture, and of the first 3 chapters of Genesis, in particular: that it is a mistake to treat these chapters as thought their literary genre were a scientific genre, for the reasons specified in my response to you. [And I do think God is able to work through processes that are random (random defined as "there is no way to predict an outcome based on prior conditions") And that the randomness of evolution only pertains to the mechanism for introducing variability into the genetic code, without which there is no mechanism for the adaptability of living things over time with changing conditions.] But as I said, these are issues over which believers have disagreed for a long time and will likely to continue to disagree.
August 20th, 2010 at 10:24 am
Ken, I think you’re mischaracterizing B.B. Warfield’s views. You make it sound like he endorsed theistic evolution (or something like it). If anything, he would be a proponent of intelligent design. His view of evolution is exactly what those supporting intelligent design would argue–that it requires God to intervene in order to create new design. If you read the following quote by Warfield, you’ll see that what he would characterize as ‘too extreme a form of evolution” what you and other ‘theistic’ evolutionists support.
“The upshot of the whole matter is that there is no necessary antagonism of Christianity to evolution, provided that we do not hold to too extreme a form of evolution. To adopt any form that does not permit God freely to work apart from law and which does not allow miraculous intervention (in the giving of the soul, in creating Eve, etc.) will entail a great reconstruction of Christian doctrine, and a very great lowering of the detailed authority of the Bible. But if we condition the theory by allowing the constant oversight of God in the whole process, and his occasional supernatural interference for the production of new beginnings by an actual output of creative force, producing something new i.e., something not included even in posse in the preceding conditions, we may hold to the modified theory of evolution and be Christians in the ordinary orthodox sense.”
August 20th, 2010 at 11:58 am
Scott, I think your Warfield quote is consitent with what I was saying. Evolutionary science (like all science) restricts itself to seeking to know what can be known about the natural realm, and when it is staying true to its limits, is agnostic as to other factors that transcend the natural realm. There certainly are evolutionary scientists who step beyond their own discipline to offer speculations about what evolution infers about God etc. (Richard Dawkins being a prime example), but most scientist are more modest regarding the claims of science. It’s very difficult to know what is meant my “intelligent design” as its proponents include young earth creationists all the way to those who accept evolution to high degree (allowing for species to evolve over time into populations that become distinct species from the common ancestor). So I would say you are mischaracterizing what science claims to address by the scientific method.
August 20th, 2010 at 12:07 pm
Note to young pastors: You see that once you even mention this issue (evolution) and the possibility that there is no necessary conflict between evolutionary science and SCripture, you must be prepared for a considerable push back from the religious community. This is why it is important to do your homework, if you want to preach the gospel in a way that doesn’t exclude those who accept the primary narrative of modern science (evolution). You have to work hard to understand biblical interpretation issues (like distinguishing between different literary genres), you have to understand something about the nature of science, including what evolutionary science per se does and doesn’t assert. It ain’t easy. Many pastors simply ignore the issue as it creates a massive email response; people question your orthodoxy, committment to Scripture, infer that you are comprimising, etc.
But to be effective with the unreached people groups in the United STates–those who stay away from Christianity because the bru-ha over evolution seems to be something from another planet, and one they don’t wish to voluntarily inhabit–I don’t see any other way forward. It is the missional concern, I suspect, that drove Billy Graham to say that Scripture shouldn’t be read as science. He was, bless his heart, trying to remove a obstacle to the gospel for people who accept modern science, without thinking that faithfulness to God and Scripture requires taking a conscientious objector status toward evolution.
August 20th, 2010 at 9:07 pm
Ken: It’s certainly true that there are various narrative styles within the Bible. As I see it, the problem with viewing the early parts of Genesis (usually ch. 1-11 are the ones brought into question) as “poetic” is that nothing else in the rest of Scripture supports this. There are several direct and indirect references to Adam and Eve within scripture outside of Genesis, especially in the New Testament, and these references show that they were regarded as nothing but literal historical people.
This includes the genealogy of Jesus contained in Luke, and several references by Paul. For ex., “For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.” In other words, sin and the curse of death entered the world through the actions of Adam (and Eve) and was thus passed on to all his descendants (Eve was “the mother of all the living”).
Also, I believe that a simple direct reading of Gen. 2 does not contradict Gen. 1. Gen. 2 is simply detailing a particular aspect of Gen. 1: the creation of man and woman. Gen. 1 is a panoramic view of creation in chronological order. Jesus Himself evidently saw no contradictions with the accounts given in the first two chapters of Gen. Having the very same Scriptures at His disposal, when He was questioned by the Pharisees about divorce in Matt., Jesus said, “‘Haven’t you read,’ He replied, ‘that at the beginning the Creator “made them male and female,” and said “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh”? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.’” Here Jesus, talking about one man and one woman as the basis for marriage, quoted from Gen. 1 and Gen. 2, talking about the same man and the same woman. Jesus, therefore viewed these chapters not as contradictory accounts of events but complimentary ones.
Also, it is true that if one takes Gen. literally it would mean that the children of Adam and Eve would have to have sex with each other to procreate. However, it is interesting to consider: what is the problem with that? God had not yet given the law, so there were no restrictions against such behavior. Adam and Eve were the most genetically perfect humans that the world has ever known, and thus the medical reasons for banning such behavior were non-existent. The “ickyness” with which we view such behavior would also have been non-existent. So, as strange as it seems to us today, some of Adam and Eve’s children did reproduce together.
Sorry for the lengthy posts. I have a passion for this topic. Also, I do not doubt that many people who accept some version of evolution are sincere Christians.
August 20th, 2010 at 9:25 pm
Trevor, “Also, I do not doubt that many people who accept some version of evolution are sincere Christians.” I’ll take that and consider my post successful! Blessings, Ken
August 20th, 2010 at 10:11 pm
So the answer to Trevor’s question is that you do not believe in a literal Adam and Eve, correct?
My own practical experience with this issue in the church I lead is that ‘thoughtful people’ (as if those who embrace creationism aren’t thoughtful, I guess) usually are put at ease with a simple acknowledgment that the Genesis account of creation doesn’t tell us everything we’d like to know and that there is room for differing views on a number of issues (the length of the days of creation, for example).
But dispensing with a literal Adam and Eve seems to pretty clearly go beyond what is acceptable to question. Paul sure seemed to believe in a literal Adam and Eve…we do harm to more of the Bible than just Genesis when we decide that Adam and Eve aren’t literal.
A couple other thoughts…
The continual suggestion that Christians who embrace creationism are somehow less than thoughtful is really condescending and annoying. Many thoughtful and very bright people embrace creationism.
Finally, what are the limits of our adopting prevailing cultural views in order to reach people? As our culture is moving toward full acceptance of homosexuality and viewing those who continue to label such practices ’sin’ as bigoted and unthoughtful, will we soon be encouraged that we must accept the prevailing view on homosexuality lest we keep so many thoughtful people from faith?
August 21st, 2010 at 7:21 am
Brian, My reference to “thoughtful” people is to people on the outside of faith who find the anti-evolution views of many Christians to be a stumbling block to believing, especially when it is presented as the only valid view. To say that there are such people is not to infer that those who hold your views are not also thoughtful. (I know many such people myself, including yourself.) It’s my experience that there are many who find it difficult to identify with a religion that asks them to accept as untrue things that they sincerely believe are true, i.e. the common ancestry of all living things and the mechanism of natural selection, that nature selects for traits that have an adaptive advantage and over time this changes the gene pool. And these are thoughtful people–not people looking for any excuse not to believe. Included among them are dear friends of mine, loved ones, family members, etc.
August 21st, 2010 at 11:26 am
Brian, forgot to mention, in answer to your main question: yes, correct, I do not read Adam and Eve as historical figures. I do not put them in the same category as I would Jesus of Nazareth, Paul, and many others in the Bible, who are, as I read it, presented as historical figures in the way we understand the term. This reading of Genesis 2-3, is, in my view, a very respectufl reading of the text–that is, I’m reading this as one seeking to take my clues from the text itself. Oviously, I don’t see the same problems you see in this approach. I suspect there may be many cases where ancient readers might have read things differently. For example, did Paul think that the earth was built on literal foundations, the worldview reflected in the Hebrew SCriptures? I’d imagine he did. Did Jesus in his incarnate form operate from a similar worldview, or was he privy to all that is known about the earth from the vantage point of 21st century science? I don’t see a problem with saying that on these matters they were people of their times and did not operate with advance scientific knowledge of all things. As a human being, Jesus knew what he knew by divine revelation. If the Father didn’t reveal to him that the earth was not literally built on foundations, or that the sun did not revolve around the earth as the Hebrews assumed (reflected in the Bible), I think that’s fully consistent with a Nicene Creed understanding of his identity as fully human, fully divine. I’ve never felt that such a perspective as I’ve outline is especially daring or suspect. My early guides in these matters were people like C.S. Lewis and Dietrich Bonhoeffer–good guides in my book, you may prefer others for these matters. Many OT professors at places like Wheaton, Trinity, Fuller would concur with this view, so I consider it pretty mainstream, and not some far out perspective. (Not that these places are the final arbiter in such matters.) Let us serve Jesus with the light we have.
August 21st, 2010 at 1:12 pm
Ken,
So without a literal Adam I’m guessing you would view Paul as wrong in Romans 5 with the whole ‘death through Adam, life through Christ’ thing? And when he references death reigning from the ‘time of Adam to the time of Moses’ he was correct in viewing Moses as a historical figure but wrong in viewing Adam that way?
Since you don’t view Adam as an historical figure, how do you approach Romans 5?
I’m familiar with C.S. Lewis’ views on this (generally) and have others that hold such views that I greatly respect as well (Dinesh D’Souza being one).
I’d just like to understand how you handle Romans 5 with the view that you hold?
August 21st, 2010 at 1:53 pm
Brian, Fair question! I think Adam is a figurative character, representing humanity at the beginning: Adam from Adamah (human from humous); the dirt-man. (Example of what I would read as figurative language in the text, by the way.) Paul’s teaching is drawing an analogy or comparison between Adam and Jesus as originating figures–Adam the beginning of the old creation (surely this old creation had a human beginning) and Jesus the beginning of the new creation. I think there is room in the Hebrew mindset for the comparison of a figurative figure with an historical figure. (Hebrews loved metaphor much more than we do–and trusted it as a powerful truth bearing container. In fact it is the modern scientific mindset that has dimmed our appreciation for metaphor and views it as a “lesser than” truth container.) The truth of Romans 5 applies whether or not Adam is an historical figure or a representative-figurative figure. I suspect that Paul thought of Adam as a historical figure, like Jesus. Heck, when I imagine Adam, I think of him that way too. I picture him as a “real person.” I don’t think the distinction between historical and figurative even entered Paul’s mind at this point as there was no science addressing human origins at the time of Paul’s epistle.
When the psalmists and others spoke of the earth being founded on pillars, I think they probably imagined actual pillars. We read as figurative what they meant as literal. But I think SCripture is written in a way that allows for translation across very different worldviews and cosmologies. If it can’t be read that way, we’re all in deep trouble who love this book.
[By the way, I find the term "literal" to be confusing when applied to Adam. Literal is often used to mean "really real" when the word "literal" also means, more naturally "literary." A letter, after all, is not the thing itself, but a code-metaphor for the thing itself. Historical is the less confusing word to me--was he a person in history like you and me, Charles DeGaul, Jesus of Nazareth, Saul of Tarsus, Pontius Pilate, etc.]
August 21st, 2010 at 10:32 pm
Why this debate is important (I’ll let the evolutionists tell us): “Christianity has fought, still fights, and will continue to fight science to the desperate end over evolution, because evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus’ earthly life was supposedly made necessary. Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the Son of God. If Jesus was not the redeemer who died for our sins, and this is what evolution means, then Christianity is nothing.“–G. Richard Bozarth
“Where does (evolution) leave God? The kindest thing to say is that it leaves him with nothing to do, and no achievements that might attract our praise, our worship or our fear. Evolution is God’s redundancy notice, his pink slip. But we have to go further. A complex creative intelligence with nothing to do is not just redundant. A divine designer is all but ruled out by the consideration that he must at least as complex as the entities he was wheeled out to explain. God is not dead. He was never alive in the first place.”–Richard Dawkins
August 22nd, 2010 at 7:33 am
Trevor, We err to think Richard Dawkins, a fine scientist, is a reputable theologian. Consider instead the writings of a fine scientist, Simon Conway Morris, who disagrees with Dawkins. Or Francis Collins or many others.
August 22nd, 2010 at 8:48 am
Note to Young Pastors: Take a look at the two quotes above (comment #30). Can you see how the quote from the Christian (G.R. Bozrath) as a representative of Christianity might provoke the response of Richard Dawkins? And vice versa? Here we have two spokespersons for their respective disciplines (faith and science) asserting that the disciplines cannot peacefully co-exist–are at absolute odds with each other. This is classic culture war framing. If you are weary of the culture war, and think it has done more to harm than help the cause of the gospel, listen to other voices. Like Billy Graham, who says Genesis 1-3 should not be read as science, or on the biological science side, Simon Conway Morris (an evolutionary biologist like Dawkins), Joan Roughgarden (a world reknown ecologist who disagrees sharply with Dawkins) and Francis Collins (an evangelical, former head of the Genome Project, and current director of the National Institute of Health who disagrees with both quotes.)
August 22nd, 2010 at 9:33 am
Ken: Bozarth was/is (as far as I know) an atheist. At least he was at the time of the above quote, which is from his book The Meaning of Evolution.
Giving reasons for his path to atheism he says (writing in the 3rd person): “One was learning about evolution in the 9th grade, which proved to him there was no need for a supernatural explanation for the origin of the universe or life on Earth. If supernatural explanations weren’t necessary for these two awesome events, when, he wondered, were they necessary? Eventually he knew supernatural explanations are never necessary to explain anything.
August 22nd, 2010 at 8:39 pm
On post 30; how does ‘destroying’ Adam and Eve as historical individuals ‘destroy’ original sin as a reality?
Figurative Adam and Eve or not, the fact that man’s nature is corrupt and leans towards rejecting God can still be true and still require a savior.
And Dawkins’, as Mr. Spock would say; is ‘illogical’.
How does the creation of a self regulating world negate the existence of the creator?
We, as God’s creation do it all the time on a much smaller scale.
Behold your humble thermostat.
If man can invent a heater and then see that it requires his constant attention to turn it on when it’s too cold and turn it off when it’s too hot.
Does it take away from his inventive ability to then devise an automatic control that does the turning on and off of the heater for him, keeping the temperature constant?
Wouldn’t a kind of evolutionary process that regulates life to help it automatically go on through time adjusting to changes in the environment without God’s constant attention be reflective of God’s wonderful mind?
Sorry, Ken, but that quote from Dawkins makes me question the claim that he is a fine scientist
August 23rd, 2010 at 10:01 am
Ken, G. R. Bozarth is NOT a Christian, let alone a spokesperson for faith. He is a very prominent and outspoken atheist! I’m not sure how you could read that quote and deduce that he’s otherwise.
August 23rd, 2010 at 10:06 am
Ken, if evolutionary science is “agnostic as to other factors that transcend the natural realm” as you put it, how can there be something called ‘theistic evolution’? What’s ‘theistic’ about it? Is that like ‘theistic gravity’ or ‘theistic thermodynamics’? Or, is a more palatable way of simply saying ‘evolution’? There is nothing ‘theistic’ about it. If anything, it’s ‘deistic’. God somehow created it all, set it all in motion, but then it pretty much ran itself without his involvement or intervention.
August 23rd, 2010 at 11:12 am
scott and trevor, I stand corrected on Bozarth’s faith background or lack thereof. Point remains, that this quote could easily have come from a Christian who is convinced that evolution and faith are incompatible.
I know many (including one of our pastors) who became atheist in school when encountering the teaching of modern science, including evolution. But this was in large part due to the fact that many Christian young people are taught that the two are incompatible. When faced with the reasonable evidence for the science, such Christian young people, working within the confines of the paradigm they have received, choose science over faith. This is more likely when their Christian faith is a rationalist fundamentalism that denies the biblical role of experience and relies too heavily on rationalist arguments. When the arguments they were given don’t hold up in the face of the facts, they ditch their faith. Tragic.
“Theistic evolution” as a label is a attempt to say that one believes that the God of nature is able to work through nature His wonders to perform. God is not restricted to “supernatural” means–not a biblical term, btw, as the nature-supernature dualism is not a biblical one.
I am a theist because I believe and have witnessed and experience God’s active involement in my life and the life of others. I have witnessed healings that convince me that God is not adequately described by the deistic vision of God.
[But back to the nature-supernature language: The Bible doesn't use the term "nature" to refer to creation. Creation is the preferred term. The Bible tends to speak of "wonders" without using the term "supernatural". The transcendent God of the Bible is intimately involved in his creation. Which is why we don't need to fear that the scientific discovery of how creation works is any threat to God's involvement. As Joao points out in his comment (#34)]
Believe me, when I speak to secular scientists, I often cite the damage Richard Dawkins has done to the teaching of evolution by his forays into bad theology and metaphysics. I think Richard Dawkins, ironically is one of the fathers of the “intelligent design” movement, because his understanding of science and faith is the one I.D. proponents are reacting to. He is often the biologist cited in I.D. books,for this reason. And btw, I’ve not yet spoken with a secular scientist who didn’t in some way agree that Dawkins has overstepped his expertise in his culture war approach to evolution.
Nevertheless, he is an outstanding science writer, if you are informed enough in your faith and have the common sense not to swallow his poorly informed musings on theology. (I suspect Dawkins may have been raised in a fundamentalist home. He is certainly reacting to a fundamentalist version of Christianity.)
You guys are putting me through my paces!
August 23rd, 2010 at 10:33 pm
Ken, nice riff on Adam and Eve.
And excellent summary of randomness vis deterministic factors in your previous post on mutate select mechanisms.
About as fair as can be done.
I think your responses hold true to the plumb line (something tells me you’re a little more than a science layman) that the theologian’s vocational disease of interpretation through genres and tropes simply can’t be applied to neo-Darwinian core concepts of mutate-select. There’s simply no way that NS or mutation can play any other logical role in evolutionary science than the roles for which Darwin established them. The feint (on analogy to literary criticism) of theologians to make change and refinement within science (say refinement from Newtonian to relativity to QM) equate with some falsification or a wholesale rejection of Darwinian science is just plain ignorance of the fact that NS today still holds the same logical meaning and logical validity as a testable hypothesis as previously assigned by Darwin.
Nothing in the biblical accounts of origins (a nod to your Adam and Eve) depends even remotely on a foundation of rigorous empirical testing.
The riff-raff of interpretation and disagreement among Christians themselves in their inter-mural interpretive squabbles testifies to the emergent properties and efflorescence of language. Not to any instability in science. As if Newton’s laws (or Kepler’s for that matter) or NS change according to the varieties of Christian debates over biblical interpretation. They don’t. It seems to me to be more fundamentally plumbed-to-truth that we are seekers after truth – including truth found in the wide and breathtaking range from lawfulness to stochastic evidence in nature, and including that some truth statements stand or fall on empirical evidence.
Cheers,
Jim
August 24th, 2010 at 6:56 pm
It’s interesting that both Newton and Kepler were Christians who, by all accounts, would today be considered “creationists.”
It’s also interesting, as I’ve already noted, that a person can operate in ANY field of science and completely reject Darwinian evolution. As PhD cell biologist (and “creationist”) Dr. David Menton put it, “The fact is that though widely believed, evolution contributes nothing to our understanding of empirical science and thus plays no essential role in biomedical research or education.”
Even evolutionists realize this. Dr. Philip Skell, Emeritus Evan Pugh Professor of Chemistry at Penn State University and a member of the National Academy of Sciences, in 2005 stated that “my own research with antibiotics during World War II received no guidance from insights provided by Darwinian evolution. Nor did Alexander Fleming’s discovery of bacterial inhibition by penicillin. I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin’s theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: No.
“I also examined the outstanding biodiscoveries of the past century: the discovery of the double helix; the characterization of the ribosome; the mapping of genomes; research on medications and drug reactions; improvements in food production and sanitation; the development of new surgeries; and others. I even queried biologists working in areas where one would expect the Darwinian paradigm to have most benefited research, such as the emergence of resistance to antibiotics and pesticides. Here, as elsewhere, I found that Darwin’s theory had provided no discernible guidance, but was brought in, after the breakthroughs, as an interesting narrative gloss.”
Darwinian evolution is, as Ernst Mayr, one of the 20th century’s most influential evolutionists, put it, a “historical science.” In other words, Darwinian evolution is a belief system about the past–the untestable past.
September 4th, 2010 at 6:42 am
Well… I am still struggling with seeing how the God of the Bible can fit into Darwin’s theory. Random mutations – any directing influence makes them NOT random, and natural selection, which has no intelligent being behind it, or it would be ARTIFICIAL selection. If you want to accept God’s involvement in either one of these you don’t have evolution. “Theistic evolution” is for drinking teetotalers.
The practical applications of the theory are by far scarier than the weak science (compelling evidence – I have not seen this, but I don’t see black helicopters or the Soviet Union in John’s Revelation either – but I suppose they are there for those that really want them to be…) We are to be imitators of God –aren’t we? Should I throw my handicapped daughter out into the cold and stop wasting my limited resources on her and invest what I am able into my healthy son who can better represent and pass on my dna? Isn’t that what God would do? And why on earth did Jesus heal the people His Father was weeding out? So much for unity in the trinity. Why are we commanded to subsidize those who are being selected against?
October 14th, 2010 at 11:55 am
Ken,
Thanks for this article. As a student at university it is difficult to see the overwhelming accumulation of evidence from all fields of study: history, physics, biology, anthropology, and chemistry, that support evolution, and attempt to reconcile this with what the “church” has predominantly taught… that if you believe in evolution you are choosing against faith. People wonder why so many kids go into college good Christians and come out anti-church or even atheist. I see that it has much less to do with universities teaching the wrong things, or pushing their agenda, and much more to do with the fact that the church offers these children no other recourse than to turn their backs on the church when faced with a choice, from the community of believers that looks somewhat like this: either you’re with them, or you’re with us!
Your comments stating you’ve observed that people who are strong proponents against evolution have received their facts from biased sources and have not taken the time to really learn what “evolution does and does not say” is right on. Your comment about the purpose of some books in the Bible existing, clearly, to communicate a scriptural truth (more parable or poetic form) and others being firsthand accounts or direct instructions to the church is also something I’ve noted and am glad to see this idea getting some press
I would challenge anyone with strong resistance to the idea of evolution to do some research on this topic drawing from unbiased sources. Talk to scientists who are believers, learn the facts about the theory of evolution. Study some Hebrew. Learn what Genesis does and does not say in it’s original language. Compare the Hebrew text of Genesis to the writing style in the gospels. If you know the truth, then digging for facts should only help your argument, right?
Anyway, Ken, thanks for this article. I will be forwarding it to some students I know who are struggling through their anthropology and biology courses due to conflicts of religion. (and I do mean “religion”… not faith!)
Blessings to you on your journey…
October 14th, 2010 at 12:06 pm
OH. You addressed the issue of the church’s standard impossible choice to children in the comments above mine. Good words. I’m with you and have come to, basically, all the same conclusions you have set forth in response to all the same questions you’ve gotten here! Keep it up. It’s funny to see every question and objection I’ve personally heard from believers about evolution and see you give every response I’ve given written out on one page here. Makes me smile. ha.
October 31st, 2010 at 10:43 am
John Faisant Said:
(August 19th, 2010 at 10:42 pm)
“If there is any purpose at all you do not have randomness … Random chance and purposeful intent are not compatible.”
This appears to me to not be true at all. 1. Roll dice in a monopoly game. I am purposefully using a random process (unpredictable and uncontrolled by me in detail to accomplish a purpose. 2. Peter cast lots to choose the 12th post-Judas apostle. 3. I (and others of course) have used random processes on the computer to design molecules and processes for specific purposes.
It is very interesting to think about what a random process means to an omnipotent God and to consider why He might use such a process to accomplish some purpose.