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!
