At Quintessence of Dust, Stephen Matheson has posted an interesting article about biological evolution (i.e., common descent) and whether it poses a “threat” to Christian faith. I’m not a biologist, which is why I won’t go beyond what is common knowledge to professional scientists when writing about evolution. With that caveat, I’ll make my position clear for anyone who’s interested:
Evolution means change. At talkorigins.org, we find this definition:
In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve. Biological evolution … is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions.
–Douglas J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates 1986
Biological evolution is a fact. To believe that evolution has not and is not happening is like believing the Earth is flat or doesn’t orbit the Sun. The evidence for evolution is simply overwhelming. Now, that doesn’t mean you’re an idiot if you don’t accept evolution as a fact, although you might be. Likely, it means one of two things. First, you are simply not educated with respect to the mountain of observational and experimental evidence that demonstrates biological evolution. Second, you are aware of it, or some of it, and are either unwilling or unable to process it.
The theory of evolution refers to the specific mechanisms that control genetic change from one generation of organisms to the next. In other words, life is unquestionably evolving (the fact), but there are competing models that explain and predict how it evolves (the theory).
Does any of this pose a threat to Christianity? Scientific models such as evolution are designed to explain and predict natural phenomena. They do not, as a general rule, explain all of reality. God is not present in the theory of evolution not because evolution implies his nonexistence (it doesn’t), but because the theory is simply limited in scope. It doesn’t consider God for the same reason it doesn’t consider the photoelectric effect. Evolution isn’t about God. It’s about populations, genetics, inheritance, etc. Neither Christianity nor even theism is threatened by the development and use of scientific models.
Matheson is not the first to point out the one significant challenge posed by evolutionary biology: a workable anthropology that incorporates the fall of man. But Christianity is not about the fall of man. Christianity is the assertion that God has reached across the gulf of human weakness to redeem us from sin. How and why the gulf developed are somewhat secondary issues. Christianity is about Jesus Christ, not Adam.
I agree in that I see no conflict between either evolution or the theory of natural selection, and creationism. It seems clear to me that if one wishes to start from scratch and create something that is destined to be perfect, evolution is best and fastest way of doing it. Of course, that’s just me; I’m frequently accused of having it backwards…that creation started off perfect and is destined to be blown to oblivion.
I would, however, raise an issue about how much Christianity is related to the fall of man(kind). Many Christians seem to think that the fall of man is why we’re all “born in sin”; it is the precise reason that the gulf you mention between God and man exists in the first place. Had there been no fall, we would not be needing a heapin’ helpin’ of grace to obtain salvation.
I would also argue that saying that Christianity is about Jesus is inaccurate due to being too general. The basis of Christianity is about Jesus’ death and resurrection, and has little to do with his life or teachings. Herod could have succeeded in killing the baby Jesus, preventing him from teaching, and it would not change Christian creeds or confessions of faith by a single word (one might argue that we’d not have all those creeds if that had happened, but the point remains). Most Christians apparently place more faith in Paul or other words in scriptures than they do in Jesus’ words.
As evidence of this, I’d mention that Jesus said that if he was lifted up, he would draw all men unto him. This isn’t reflected in church membership statistics, and I argue that declining church attendance and membership is precisely due to “lifting up” Paul, older scriptures, and doctrines that Jesus never taught rather than placing the life and teachings of Jesus at the center stage.
That be what it may. I don’t know whether to thank you or to curse you for the link to Matheson’s blog. :) Irresistibly interesting stuff there, and worse, in many of his linkages. Just as I almost finished sorting through your blogroll, now you’ve done it to me again. *grin*
As another aside, if you’re going to the LWC Christmas music thingy tonight, look for me; I’ll be hanging with some folk from the math dept. Would be nice to finally meetchoo. If not, may you and yours have a wonderful Christmas season!!
I don’t agree with this article I am on the Christianism side. Prove that God is not real!!!!!!!