Belief in the origin of life and evolution of man May 3, 2008
Posted by bobpearson in Uncategorized.trackback
An article today in the Wall Street Journal reported on the latest efforts of the Intelligent Design theory community to get state legislatures to pass laws that allow it to be taught in classroom and to allow teachers to question the foundations of the Theory of evolution. This poll was put along side the article:
Which of the following statements comes closest to your views on the origin of human beings?
Man developed over millions of years from less advanced life forms: 13%
Man developed over millions of years, but God guided the process: 38%
God created human beings in their present form within the last 10,000 years: 45%
Source: Gallup Poll of 1,016 U.S. adults, November 2004. Margin of error: +/- 3%
I am a believing Christian, study the Bible, lead Bible classes and am also an intelligent human who has studied a lot of science. While I believe in the story of the creation in the Bible, I think it is metaphor and not to be taken literally. My position is probably somewhere between answers one and two of the survey above. But apparently nearly half of the population of the country still believes it is literal and that humans appeared on earth in their present state less than 10,000 years ago… And I am in a small minority of people in the country who understand it differently.
It is not only possible to be a believing Christian and not take the creation story literally, I postulate that it is essential that this become the majority view of the Christian church here and around the world. We cannot go back to pre-modern understandings of the universe anymore than we can stay in a purely modern view as well. The church must be relevant to the real world not a bastion of illogical, mystical, and off-beat ideas that are ridiculed by anyone with a modicum of scientific perspectives. It does not have to be this way and it is unGodly to have it be that way.
God help us!! What are the implications to public policy, voting habits, science advancement, our competitive position in the world, government intervention in education, etc. if this state continues for the next hundred years. Next they will try again to make Pi=3.0! 
But seriously, I think this is a major issue for the church to grapple with and I hope we can have a dialog here on this site.
Flame away!
Bob
“The church must be relevant to the real world not a bastion of illogical, mystical, and off-beat ideas that are ridiculed by anyone with a modicum of scientific perspectives. It does not have to be this way and it is unGodly to have it be that way.”
Wow! Creationism and or I.D. are “illogical, mystical and off-bear.” bold words, that I strongly disagree with.
Your stance sounds like that of a secular humanist.
Josh,
I am far from a secular humanist. Some have labeled me a mystic in many of my views. Many in my own church think I am the arch conservative when it comes to doctrine questions.
One does not have to believe in a six day creation, or an intelligent design that can be defined or even understood by us humans, to be a faithful Christian and a believer in God. God gave us science just like God gives us faith. To deny what we can know about the world through science and research and experimentation and exploration does not deny God or lessen our dependence and faith in God and his Son Jesus.
Adhering to clear misinformation, myth, and stories in a literal way is an affront to God and our image of God. Why hold on to these outdated ways of understanding the universe, just to make it easier. Holding the contradictions in tension is much harder and more real.
Live into the mystery more and let go of the absolutes and the literals and you wlll be closer to God.
Bob
Bob,
Really good post. I would have to say (and I think you are) that there is evidence of intelligent design… in that God had a part in the process. Creationism, though, as I would agree with you, seems in the literal 7-day sense to be a bit fading.
Now, in regards to the evolution from the less advanced life form option… I don’t know if I would say that we go way back to un-thinking, unfeeling, life forms. But, if one were to say that learning of information, utilizing this info, and growing in our ability to draw closer into relationship with an infinitely present God is becoming more advanced… I would say that we are on a process of advancement. I definitely think you agree with this. It is pretty difficult to argue that “Adam and Eve” or the early Hebrews knew as much as we did about the world and God.
Feedback?
Nate
According to the Bible, which is the only source that matters on the subject of origins… because it’s the only book that was written by the originator, Adam and Eve knew God pretty well. Adam also knew the world pretty well, as he named all the animals.
There is the defined definition of Intelligent Design that is being promoted today by the Discovery Institute (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_Institute) and others. This is a form of Creationism and not the view that God has/had some part in the process as Nate used the term, I believe. I will admit to God’s involvement in the process, i just cannot say just what it is/was since I am not on the same level as the originator and am incapable of knowing it as God does.
I am this recent intelligent Design effort as little different than six day creationism. It has been argued and refuted on numerous occasions and it not worthy of more of the same here.
As to Josh’s statement that the Bible is the only thing we have that is authored by the originator, what about all of nature. Paul says that this is the first thing we should see that tells us of God in Romans. So looking at nature should not contradict what the Bible says. We need to reconcile both, not rely on only one source. So if our view of nature and the Bible are in conflict we need to either chose which we will believe or find a way to make them both say the same thing. Since the Bible is a product of the trinity, and not a member of it, just as the world is, the later seems the best course. So nature tells us about evolution, a billion year old earth, an infinite multibillion year old universe, dinosaurs existing long before humans, etc. We need to understand the Bible with this set of facts included, not try to eliminate or refute them to make a specific interpretation of the Bible still fit.
Bob
Bob
“Since the Bible is a product of the trinity, and not a member of it, just as the world is…”
I like that Bob. I rest on the mystery of a God who is over and above, beyond and before, yet also in and throughout the Bible. When it comes to creation and the evolution of thought, the world, the universe, etc some of the things in the Bible (if taken literally) just don’t make sense. I take much comfort in knowing that God is bigger than that and the thing that I really need to remember is that God is revealed in Jesus Christ. I’ve got enough confirmation of who God is in Jesus to last me a life time.
As Greg Boyd says, I believe in the Bible BECAUSE I believe in Jesus. Not the other way around. Questioning what happened “in the beginning” does not shatter my belief in Jesus or that he shows me who God is.
As far as the creationism vs. evolution debate I come back to something I heard a pastor from a “conservative evangelical Presbyterian church” (from their pamphlet) say, (when talking about Genesis) “I am more concerned about WHO created the universe, not HOW.”
I think that is the crux of where I stand. I don’t believe in six day creationism. I probably fall fairly close to the second stance, but can I explain that knowing what I know about science and the Bible? The answer is no. “Great is the mystery of faith.”
Having said all of that…that is not why I am responding.
Bob, while agree where you are, I think that since the dawn of man people have been saying things like “if we (the church) did it this way it would be so much better.” I know that I have said that. I have been known on occasion to say, “It would be so much easier if they would just listen to me.” (only half-kidding).
(I also realize that this post is a way of saying “you should see it my way”)
I think a more major issue for the church is not getting people to believe a particular thing but to work towards being in community with those that believe differently from you. Creationist and Evolutionist on pews, (or couches, or beanbag chairs) together focusing on WHO created us not HOW.
Also one question, you said “a bastion of illogical, mystical, and off-beat ideas that are ridiculed by anyone with a modicum of scientific perspectives” and Josh took umbrage with that and I might also. Some of our rituals are by nature illogical, mystical, and off-beat. Communion comes to mind, Baptism, prayer. So my question is how far does logic move into faith? (I am all about the life of the mind and not that mystical) Like I said before “Great is the mystery of faith”.
Who determines what illogical, off-beat ideas or rituals are ok and which ideas do we reject because they are out-dated
I, too, believe in some combination of positions one and two in your survey, Bob. The evidence is pretty overwhelming that life on our planet developed through a gradual process over millions of years, and the rebuttals put forth by creationists are often, in my opinion, pretty weak. But we don’t need to adopt this view out of a desire to be relevant, however. I really just got started by asking,”What is true, here?”
Two very good books on this subject are “The Language of God,” by Francis Collins, who headed the team of scientists who mapped the human genome, and “Finding Darwin’s God,” by a Kenneth R. Miller. Both of these men are scientists, both are Christians, and both believe that life on earth was produced by some form of evolution.
P.S. The Deschutes Public Library system has both of these books.
I figured I’d weigh in here.
Regarding the Bible and the subject of origins, the real question is not whether or not the Bible is trustworthy- we all agree it is. The question is, what answers was the Bible - specifically, the book of Genesis, trying to answer. It is highly anachronistic of us to assume its answering the questions as we would formulate them in the 20th and 21st centuries.
The Bible is inspired and authoritiative- but the question of what topics the Bible (and its various books and genres) are trying to address is another thing entirely. When we make the Bible into something it originally was not, then it is WE who are changing it, distoring the original intent God gave through the people and cultures he spoke through.
And, to agree with Bob, the Intelligent Design crowd are calling for a very specific form of creation account that is almost as scientifically unsound as the six-day literal Creation version.
What I opt for is plenty of mystery. Did God play a role in our development as a species? Yes, of course, as a follower of Jesus, I believe that. But I think its difficult (read: impossible) to separate what God did in the process from what the natural selection that took place did. The two are intertwined in some mysterious, glorious, though sometimes messy, ways that we can’t begin to fully understand.
But getting back to my original point- the Bible is only inspired and authoritative when applied to the kinds of questions it was trying to answer- and from within the genre it was originally written.
If we don’t pay attention to original intent and genre than we can turn the Bible into viturally anything we want to- as David Koresh and many others have done.
I guess my main caution would be- don’t question your belief in the inspiration and authority of the Bible, rather, question your assumptions regarding the issues its really trying to address.