Well actually that doesn’t settle it. Despite what the Ds, Rs, and Foxnews say, a majority opinion does not create reality and is not in and of itself an indicator of truth. So the issue remains. I am unsure which way to go here as I see good reasons for accepting and rejecting both positions.
It is quite clear that Christianity is not compatible with Naturalistic Darwinian Evolution as the later assumes the non-existence of God (or any god that could in anyway matter). People who assert that these two can go together do not understand what they are talking about. However with Macro Evolution (the idea that Micro Evolution leads species to change into other species over a great period of time and that this process is responsible for the existence of all species) the issue is different. As Macro Evolution is a question of process (how questions) it does not seem to directly conflict with Christianity (which seems more concerned with why questions). If such a conflict exists, it is not as obvious and apparent as with Naturalistic Evolution. The question is, could God have used Evolution to produce all the life on Earth and if so, did he?
Option 1, they can/do go together:
Pros Arguments:
1. Variants of Evolution are the primary accepted theory in most of culture and accepting it allows Christians to be viewed with more intellectual respect (but this is also a con).
2. While Naturalistic Evolution is an incoherent belief (due to the is/ought problem, the great statistically improbability of much of it, etc) Theistic Evolution (the belief that God in some way used Marco Evolution) is not, in and of itself. All of the logical and coherence problems of Evolution are solved if you presuppose that God directed Evolution for his purposes.
3. There is a great deal of very good evidence that suggests the world and the Universe are quite old. If the world and the Universe are quite old, this is good grounds for accepting part of the Evolution narrative.
4. If you suppose that God directs it, the lack of good biological evidence for Evolution is a no longer a problem. God can direct Evolution as he wants to get around the statistical problems and he could accelerate it temporarily (which would account for the extreme lack of transitional fossils).
5. On a micro level, Evolution is an observable and testable phenomena that only a fool could deny.
6. Lots of intelligent Christians hold to Theistic Evolution with integrity (Francis Collins, Hugh Ross, C.S. Lewis, NT Wright, and Pope John Paul II). While this can be an appeal to authority, many of these people are good authorities on this subject (Francis Collins is a geneticist, Hugh Ross is an astrophysicist, N.T. Wright is a biblical scholar, etc).
Con Arguments:
1. Variants of Evolution are the primary accepted theory in most of culture and accepting it allows Christians to be viewed with more intellectual respect. As I established above, a majority opinion does not establish truth (although if everyone says you are wrong you’d be a fool not to consider it) so if the primary reason for accepting evolutionary theory is that most people say it’s right, that’s stupid. Additionally Christians should expect to have at least some beliefs that bother/offend the rest of the world; Christ said as much (John 15:18).
2. You must modify or in some other way explain the Creation story in Genesis as non-literal or allegorical. This is at best very difficult to do. There are some important sub points here.
a. Everywhere in scripture where allegory/metaphor is used there are indicators that it is being used. No such indicators exist in the first few chapters of Genesis.
b. It is at best very difficult to explain why the word day would mean something different in Genesis 1 than elsewhere in the book. Some noble theories have been purposed for this, but they all require some real fancy dancing that leads to inconsistencies (they require you to apply different rules of interpretation to Genesis 1 than the rest of Genesis).
c. Some fundamental Christian theology (the nature and value of man, relationship of the sexes, the fall, etc) depend on the Creation and Fall story. If this story is discarded/marginalized it is difficult to legitimize these doctrines. i.e. It is really hard to explain how man is made in God’s image if he evolved from lesser creatures and shares ancestry with apes and monkeys.
3. You can disregard the Genesis story as false, but this also causes problems.
a. If one part of scripture is demonstrably false why believe in any of it and as such why bother being a Christian? Once some of it is truly undermined, all of it must be called into question.
b. If God offers a portion of scripture that is untrue, this means he is/has deceived us. Yet this is radically opposed to the nature of God that scripture presents. Pagan gods deceive and scheme, but God says that he cannot lie.
c. Again fundamental Christian theology is no longer valid or very difficult to justify. If the Genesis story is completely false, how can Christians assert that people are made in the image of God or that everyone is sinful and in need of Christ to save them?
4. At least some elements of the evolutionary process do not seem to be in keeping with God’s character. It appears to be a cruel and unforgiving process that punishes the weak and needy. Compare this to Christ’s words at the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7) and you will see the apparent discrepancy. How could the same God who doesn’t forget one sparrow (Luke 12:6) use a process that would have left 99% of the species that ever existed extinct?
Option 2, They do not/cannot go together.
Pro Arguments:
1. It takes scripture and Genesis literally, so there is no need for odd or unusual jumps in interpretation and understanding.
a. It maintains a strong view of scripture.
b. It doesn’t have to deal with the doctrinal/theological problems of the other view.
2. We have very good reasons to trust the accuracy of other parts of scripture (read The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? by FF Bruce) so it is reasonable to trust scripture in regards to Genesis. I.e. Where we can verify scripture and see if it conforms to reality it does, so it’s reasonable to trust it where we cannot check it.
3. While there have been divergent views on Creation through history, a literal view of Genesis does seem to be the most commonly held view of Christians throughout Church history (but as above, this doesn’t establish that it is correct, only that a lot of people came to this conclusion).
4. While Evolution is an observable and testable phenomenon on a micro level, this does not in and of itself establish that it happens on a macro level. Asserting so is the fallacy of affirming the consequent. I.e. If Macro Evolution is true, we would be able to observe Micro Evolution. We can observe Micro Evolution so Macro Evolution is true. The trouble with this argument is that Micro Evolution can exist independent of Macro Evolution so the existence of it does not guarantee the other. There are a large number of other reasons why Micro Evolution might exist.
5. If scripture said it, scripture is trustworthy, and God’s word is revealed in scripture, God said it, so it must be true.
6. Basing beliefs entirely on “scientific evidence” and “well accepted facts” can be foolish as such evidence has been demonstrated false before. Consider any of the missing link fossils which have all been demonstrated to be hoaxes or mistakes. This doesn’t establish that there is no missing link, it establishes that some of the “evidence” scientists cited was false.
Con Arguments:
1. You must explain why the world and Universe appear very old when they are not.
a. You can say God created the Universe with the appearance of age, but this falls into the problem of God being deceptive.
b. You can say that geologists are mistaken, but this is a pretty difficult thing to maintain in the face of plate tectonics and light from stars billions of years away reaching Earth.
2. You have to tell the majority of culture and the scientific community that they are wrong and refusing to see reality.
a. While this is a coherent theory/explanation, it is unpleasant and will lead to alienation.
3. A lot of Creationist cite bad evidence and disregard the rules of logic (i.e. don’t submit to reality) when making their case.
a. This doesn’t make Creationism false, but it does put you in the same camp as anti-intellectual fools.
So if you are a theistic evolutionist I think you must explain why the first few chapters of Genesis conflict with your belief. If you decided the Creation story is wrong, you must explain why Christianity has any validity as its primary source is now suspect.
Conversely if you believe Evolution and Christianity are incompatible, you must explain why the Earth and Universe appear so old, and you must explain why so many educated people say you are wrong.
No comments:
Post a Comment