I have argued that if “evolution” means “evolutionary development” or “Darwinian evolution,” then the religious believer has no reason to feel threatened. This is my main criticism with the Intelligent Design movement, and the reason that I ultimately do not identify with it. However, I do think that something that might be called “intelligent design” should have some place in our society.
The problem is that certain propogandists for evolution (I mean those who attempt to teach evolution to non-scientists, such as Richard Dawkins) insist on that “fact” that the doctrine of evolution is an essentially atheistic doctrine. For instance, the first lines of his Dawkins’ book Blind Watchmaker are as follows:
“This book is written in the conviction that our own existence once presented the greatest of all mysteries, but that it is a mystery no longer because it has been solved. Darwin…solved it…” (ix)
He later spells this sentiment out a bit more – he does indeed mean that religious belief is completely undermined by a scientific discovery. Well, the fact is that this is just wrong. Not just arguably wrong, but thoroughly stupid. The idea that atheism is “proven” just because Darwin identified some important principles that explain biological diversity and development is very silly. But as is often the case, the facts are less important than perceptions. And the perception among religious believers and non-believers alike is that evolution does indeed imply atheism.
I won’t be able to present any sort of arguments here, but to state my support for Intelligent Design under these limited circumstance. If evolution is taken to mean the doctrine that the universe evolved by sheer chance, then we mono-theists must be involved in this fight. And I will add that the way we should fight is not by supporting out position with reasons (a task I believe to be impossible) but to produce arguments which disprove the belief that science undermines religion.
9.22.2008
ID vs. Evolution: A Tie for Last Place, Part V
So is a Christian obligated to take a side in the Intelligent Design debate? Many Christians heartily reject “evolution” because it contradicts their Creationist beliefs. I have tried to show in Parts III and IV of this series that Creationism is simply not supported by Genesis, and so the kind of Christian who feels threatened by the notion of evolutionary development just shouldn’t be. As further proof, the two main proponents of the ID movement, William Dembski and Micheal Behe, both reject Creationism.
There have been many, many theories of evolutionary development, and Darwin’s is just one particular theory. Scientists and historians seem to have forgotten this however, because people talk as if Darwin somehow invented evolution. The theory of evolution had a very long and rich history before Darwin was even born, making Darwin a relative newcomer on the evolutionary biological scene. What Dembski and Behe are attacking is not evolutionary development as such, but rather Darwin’s proposal of the mechanism of natural selection to explain this development.
At this point we can tighten our inquiry. I have tried to show that it is misguided for Christians to oppose evolution, if evolution is taken as meaning ‘evolutionary development.’ And quite obviously, Christians are obligated to reject the atheistic conclusions of certain evolutionists (more on that next week). So the issue is front of us now is whether a Christian should oppose Darwin’s conception of evolution.
My own thinking is that Darwin’s theory does not pose a problem for theism. What Darwin is concerned with is explaining the mechanism by which organisms evolve (natural selection). I can’t see how this provides a challenge to anything that is an important part of theistic belief. Indeed, I (perhaps surprisingly) share Michael Behe’s view on this. In a short essay published in Time magazine (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1090921-2,00.html) he affirms that he is quite comfortable with Darwin’s theory on theological grounds. His opposition, rather, is scientific. Whether his scientific objections hold weight is a matter I won’t be able to consider here. I am merely pointing out the weighty precedent in those Christians who feel unthreatened by Darwin’s theory.
Actually, I will do Behe one better. Not only do I have a half-hearted acceptance of Darwin’s theory, I actually like it quite a bit. Not for scientific reasons, either, but for theological reasons (check out my blog from February 18 of this year for more detail). You can go back and read the past blog if you want, where the explanation is better, but the basic point is this: in Darwin’s theory, all organisms are essentially egoistic – that is, we are all focused on propagating ourselves and our genes. The New Testament writers define a Christian as one who has apage love – that is, as one who has desires that are not rooted in self-preservation. If, then, there are some people with agape love (which is quite different than socialized sorts of ethical behaviors which sometimes look like love), then those people must be considered unnatural. This is why I titled a blog series at the beginning of the year, “Love is a Miracle.” So if Darwin’s theory is true – hooray!
There have been many, many theories of evolutionary development, and Darwin’s is just one particular theory. Scientists and historians seem to have forgotten this however, because people talk as if Darwin somehow invented evolution. The theory of evolution had a very long and rich history before Darwin was even born, making Darwin a relative newcomer on the evolutionary biological scene. What Dembski and Behe are attacking is not evolutionary development as such, but rather Darwin’s proposal of the mechanism of natural selection to explain this development.
At this point we can tighten our inquiry. I have tried to show that it is misguided for Christians to oppose evolution, if evolution is taken as meaning ‘evolutionary development.’ And quite obviously, Christians are obligated to reject the atheistic conclusions of certain evolutionists (more on that next week). So the issue is front of us now is whether a Christian should oppose Darwin’s conception of evolution.
My own thinking is that Darwin’s theory does not pose a problem for theism. What Darwin is concerned with is explaining the mechanism by which organisms evolve (natural selection). I can’t see how this provides a challenge to anything that is an important part of theistic belief. Indeed, I (perhaps surprisingly) share Michael Behe’s view on this. In a short essay published in Time magazine (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1090921-2,00.html) he affirms that he is quite comfortable with Darwin’s theory on theological grounds. His opposition, rather, is scientific. Whether his scientific objections hold weight is a matter I won’t be able to consider here. I am merely pointing out the weighty precedent in those Christians who feel unthreatened by Darwin’s theory.
Actually, I will do Behe one better. Not only do I have a half-hearted acceptance of Darwin’s theory, I actually like it quite a bit. Not for scientific reasons, either, but for theological reasons (check out my blog from February 18 of this year for more detail). You can go back and read the past blog if you want, where the explanation is better, but the basic point is this: in Darwin’s theory, all organisms are essentially egoistic – that is, we are all focused on propagating ourselves and our genes. The New Testament writers define a Christian as one who has apage love – that is, as one who has desires that are not rooted in self-preservation. If, then, there are some people with agape love (which is quite different than socialized sorts of ethical behaviors which sometimes look like love), then those people must be considered unnatural. This is why I titled a blog series at the beginning of the year, “Love is a Miracle.” So if Darwin’s theory is true – hooray!
9.08.2008
Observations of the McCain/Palin Ticket
I have decided to postpone my recent blog series “ID v. Evolution: A Tie for Last Place” to think about some recent Presidential politics. The phrase that I have heard more than any other in the past days in that Sarah Palin’s speech “electrified the Evangelical base.” I was fairly disgusted by the speech, which leads me to wonder what exactly it was in the speech that was electrifying. And since I call myself an Evangelical in the subtitle of this blog (although a bad one), I am wondering where that leaves me.
I’ll just mention two things of which I was suspicious. First was the general tone of the speech. Let’s just admit it: although my complaint here is not specific, there was indeed an unmistakable tone. That familiar, sickening tone of “Git off my property or I’ll git one of my semi-automatic weapons!” I wonder why this tone is so appealing to some Christians. Do they feel that it embodies a Scriptural attitude? What exactly is spiritually praiseworthy about it?
Secondly, and more specifically, I was shocked by her mockery of Barak’s role as a “community organizer.” This was no accidental comment, as it was a clear follow-up to Rudi’s comments. I’m not trying to argue that Obama is a saint or anything, but you can’t dispute the fact that he went to hang out with people in bad economic circumstances even though he easily could not have. Now, it’s one thing to avoid direct contact with poor people. We all know the Republican philosophy: “well, we give tax cuts to the wealthy, and the wealthy are the one who create jobs, so really, helping the rich is actually helping the poor after all.” That’s fine, whatever you have to tell yourself to get to sleep at night. It’s one thing to have this attitude, but it’s quite another to actually laugh at people who are trying to help. Seriously, read Matthew 25 and try to reconcile that with Palin’s attitude. She was not casually pocking fun at his service. She was actually mocking it.
I’ve retained my label as an Evangelical thus far because I thought that this “Git your gun!” attitude was starting to temper within the Evangelical community. But if it is not dying down, but rather coming to life again with Palin (who could be in the White House for 16 years!) perhaps I am living out my faith under the wrong label. I don’t know exactly what I would call myself. At this point I am not calling anyone out, or trying to pick a fight. I am just trying to figure out why things seem so different to me than to other Evangelicals.
I’ll just mention two things of which I was suspicious. First was the general tone of the speech. Let’s just admit it: although my complaint here is not specific, there was indeed an unmistakable tone. That familiar, sickening tone of “Git off my property or I’ll git one of my semi-automatic weapons!” I wonder why this tone is so appealing to some Christians. Do they feel that it embodies a Scriptural attitude? What exactly is spiritually praiseworthy about it?
Secondly, and more specifically, I was shocked by her mockery of Barak’s role as a “community organizer.” This was no accidental comment, as it was a clear follow-up to Rudi’s comments. I’m not trying to argue that Obama is a saint or anything, but you can’t dispute the fact that he went to hang out with people in bad economic circumstances even though he easily could not have. Now, it’s one thing to avoid direct contact with poor people. We all know the Republican philosophy: “well, we give tax cuts to the wealthy, and the wealthy are the one who create jobs, so really, helping the rich is actually helping the poor after all.” That’s fine, whatever you have to tell yourself to get to sleep at night. It’s one thing to have this attitude, but it’s quite another to actually laugh at people who are trying to help. Seriously, read Matthew 25 and try to reconcile that with Palin’s attitude. She was not casually pocking fun at his service. She was actually mocking it.
I’ve retained my label as an Evangelical thus far because I thought that this “Git your gun!” attitude was starting to temper within the Evangelical community. But if it is not dying down, but rather coming to life again with Palin (who could be in the White House for 16 years!) perhaps I am living out my faith under the wrong label. I don’t know exactly what I would call myself. At this point I am not calling anyone out, or trying to pick a fight. I am just trying to figure out why things seem so different to me than to other Evangelicals.
9.01.2008
ID v. Evolution: A Tie for Last Place, Part IV
As promised, I will attempt to show that the Creation story in Genesis was intended as a metaphor, but I first want to say a few things about metaphor. I think that conservatives as so amped up about holding out Scripture as ‘literal’ due to their strange belief that if something is not literally true, it’s value-less.
I hope that my examples last week were sufficient to dispense with this line of thinking. For instance, Paul speaks of becoming a ‘new man,’ which is obviously not intended to be literal. But Christians are still able to agree that it means something important. If anything, the reverse is true: ideas with profound meaning can often only be communicated in non-literal terms. We have this great word in the English language: myth. To many, a myth is defined as a false or misleading story, but that is not what a myth is. A myth is simply a story crafted to communicate a truth so profound that it would be impossible or else dry to communicate it in literal terms. In this sense, I have no problem saying that Genesis is a myth.
But before I get to the textual evidence, it’s worth asking if we would really get any deep meaning from the first three chapters of Genesis if it were not literally true. This is a very important exercise, because the Creationists often say that if evolution is true, then the Genesis story is worth nothing. Well, let’s list the things we learn in those few verses: 1) the relationship of God to humans, 2) the relationship of humans to each other, 3) the relationship of humans to animals, 4) the relationship of humans to the environment, 5) the relationship of humans to sin, 6) the need for redemption, and 7) the relationship of humans to work. You know – just random theological tidbits like that. I’m sure there are many more things there, but this list is enough to prove my point that the first three chapters of Genesis are absolutely packed to the brim with meaning. And keep in mind, none of those truths depend on a literal reading.
In fact, the only thing that would be gained through a literal reading is a science lesson. YAWN. Why would God spend time teaching us science? The purpose of the Bible is not to give us irrelevant facts, but is “profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness” (II Tim. 3:16). How would your spiritual and moral life be affected at all if you knew how much time it took for God to create the earth?
And here’s the proof that Genesis 1-3 is not literal. Read the first chapter of Genesis, and then read the second chapter. Then do it again more closely. Then do it a third time. Notice anything? That’s right: the timelines in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are totally different! For instance, in Genesis 1 the creation order is plants, animals, and then humans. In Genesis 2, the order is humans, plants, and then animals. So the next time you meet a Creationist would insists that Genesis must be literal because God would never lie to us, ask him whether God was lying in Genesis 1 or Genesis 2! And then tell them not to worry, because there’s plenty of earth-shaking theology there in the text even without the science lesson.
I hope that my examples last week were sufficient to dispense with this line of thinking. For instance, Paul speaks of becoming a ‘new man,’ which is obviously not intended to be literal. But Christians are still able to agree that it means something important. If anything, the reverse is true: ideas with profound meaning can often only be communicated in non-literal terms. We have this great word in the English language: myth. To many, a myth is defined as a false or misleading story, but that is not what a myth is. A myth is simply a story crafted to communicate a truth so profound that it would be impossible or else dry to communicate it in literal terms. In this sense, I have no problem saying that Genesis is a myth.
But before I get to the textual evidence, it’s worth asking if we would really get any deep meaning from the first three chapters of Genesis if it were not literally true. This is a very important exercise, because the Creationists often say that if evolution is true, then the Genesis story is worth nothing. Well, let’s list the things we learn in those few verses: 1) the relationship of God to humans, 2) the relationship of humans to each other, 3) the relationship of humans to animals, 4) the relationship of humans to the environment, 5) the relationship of humans to sin, 6) the need for redemption, and 7) the relationship of humans to work. You know – just random theological tidbits like that. I’m sure there are many more things there, but this list is enough to prove my point that the first three chapters of Genesis are absolutely packed to the brim with meaning. And keep in mind, none of those truths depend on a literal reading.
In fact, the only thing that would be gained through a literal reading is a science lesson. YAWN. Why would God spend time teaching us science? The purpose of the Bible is not to give us irrelevant facts, but is “profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness” (II Tim. 3:16). How would your spiritual and moral life be affected at all if you knew how much time it took for God to create the earth?
And here’s the proof that Genesis 1-3 is not literal. Read the first chapter of Genesis, and then read the second chapter. Then do it again more closely. Then do it a third time. Notice anything? That’s right: the timelines in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are totally different! For instance, in Genesis 1 the creation order is plants, animals, and then humans. In Genesis 2, the order is humans, plants, and then animals. So the next time you meet a Creationist would insists that Genesis must be literal because God would never lie to us, ask him whether God was lying in Genesis 1 or Genesis 2! And then tell them not to worry, because there’s plenty of earth-shaking theology there in the text even without the science lesson.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)