the evolution of faith
I'd like to begin this topic by discussing faith. What is faith? Is faith, as Richard Dawkins would put it, "blind trust, in the absence of evidence, even in the teeth of evidence?" Well, I wouldn't say so. The Bible defines faith as being certain of what cannot be seen. Is faith totally blind, simply because it cannot perceive the object? Can we not assume that there is a fire to our right when enormous amounts of heat are coming from that direction? Must we see the wind to know that it is there?
My faith is based on the evidence of the world we live in. God doesn't stand outside my front door, proclaiming "I AM!" in bodily, viewable-by-the-human-eye form. But His glory can be dsciovered through creation, which is described as his masterpiece, his canvas, even his mirror. This topic can be discussed more in-depth in another blog post; however, I precede my topic with faith, because it seems that many people (including Christians) have some serious misconceptions about what faith is.
To be certain, part of faith is trusting something, despite the fact that you don't know everything about it. For example: if I am going to sit in a chair, I must have tremendous confidence that it will hold me up without collapsing. Though I have not actually sat in the chair, I can deduce that it will be sufficiently stable, based on the structure of the chair, the size of the chair, and observing the experiences of others who have sat in the same chair. I can then judge for myself whether or not the chair is safe to sit in, and based on that judgment, take action.
Faith is not blind. Faith rests upon solid evidence and careful observation before delving into the not entirely known. Folly would be to look upon the chair, notice loose screws, and perhaps even see others who have caused the chair to collapse, and to choose to place faith in the chair despite it. According to Dawkins, faith is, indeed, folly.
What is our response to this, as Christians? We must, in all things, seek to make our faith believable, relevant, and solidly backed by proof. One key area, which, among American Christians in particular, is greatly lacking, is the area of the harmony of faith and science.
I'm going to start off by giving you what Christians argue, in response to evolution:
1. Evolution is unbiblical. It tells us that the Earth was not created by God in seven literal days, but rather by a tremendous, random explosion, which somehow resulted in life.
2. Evolution leads to atheism, because, if it is true, it disproves the existence or need of any god.
3. Evolution is not scientifically credible, because our natural observations lead us to the inevitable conclusion that a) the earth is 10,000 years old, b) no "missing link" has been found, and d) the chances of a "big bang" or the process of evolution occurring is infinitesimally improbable and therefore unbelievable.
4. No bible-believing Christians believe in evolution: since evolution is unbiblical, Christians who believe it do not consider God's word to be authoritative, and therefore, deny God's power and deity.
I'm going to start with the easy one: Evolution is unbiblical. To begin this argument, we need to establish some things about the Bible itself.
First of all, the Bible IS God-breathed and inspired. I'm not denying that at all. But the Bible is, in it's very essence, a work of literature. And many decently-written works of literature has several different writing styles within them: poetry, satire, metaphor, narrative, parable, and so on. It doesn't take a well-trained Biblical scholar to notice something strikingly synchronized and, dare I say it, poetic about Genesis 1. Without a shred of a doubt, these opening passages of the Bible are not your everyday historical account. There are verses, choruses, and various repeated syncopations. I don't need to press the point any further here: Genesis 1 IS a poem, and the only evidence one needs is to read it aloud.
With that in mind, we can draw some conclusions:
1. We can say that, since it is a poem, chances are that every historical detail is not precisely laid out accurately or even chronologically. Poetic language is expressive, not informative. Words used in poems often have different meaning than they would if used in a literal context. The word "Day", for example: when an elderly person recounts the adventures he had in his youth, he may start his stories by saying "Well, back in MY day..." This, obviously, does not mean that his youth lasted for one day, and one day only. Rather, "day" is used to describe years, even decades, of passed time. In other Biblical passages, when "the DAY of the Lord" is described, they are not describing the one single 24-hour period that God will have all to himself--obviously, they are referring to the time of God's victory, his vengeance against wrongdoing, and his rewarding of righteousness. With this in mind, how can we possibly assume that "day" can't possibly mean something similar in these opening passages? What makes this poem different from all the others? In addition to this, DAYS aren't even possible without the presence of a sun to rotate around--since the earliest days of humanity, days have been defined by the sun's rise and set. How can there be a "day", when the very definition of "day" had not yet even been made possible? Light and darkness aren't created until the fourth day, and it says: "Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years."
2. In light of this, we can accept a variety of theories on how the universe first came about. One such theory is the dreaded Big Bang, which has become, to many Christians, the antithesis of their most beloved truths. Evolution is made possible, because we are not confined to the ludicrous theory that the earth HAD to have been created in seven literal 24-hour periods. God could have just as easily been the force behind the initiation of the universe, making sure everything happened just so, in order that human life would eventually be made possible.
I believe enough has been said in this point, so I will therefore carry on to the next topic: Evolution and atheism?
A book I read a while ago, called "The Language of God", written by Francis Collins, discusses this topic well. God, being a spiritual being, and theoretically speaking, the inventor of matter, cannot, therefore, be disproved scientific means. There may be reasons to disprove God, and there may be reasons to prove God (and discerning Christians should lend their ears and minds in BOTH directions, by the way). I believe that evolution is a powerful example of the complexity and incomprehensibility of God's design in nature. That he would use such spectacular means to bring about his creation is absolutely astounding, and no less than awe-inspiring to me. In no way does evolution limit or reduce God's omnipotence; rather, if God is the author of creation, it is another manifestation of his inconceivability.
Evolution doesn't lead to atheism any more than it leads to rheumatism. Objective analysis of scientific data leads only to neutral agnosticism--the existence of God can be neither confirmed nor denied by scientific methods.
Creationists might question the scientific probability of the theory of evolution, however, they face an entire field of study whose very foundation and progress is based on this theory. Just because something is improbable doesn't make it impossible. Scientific research has shown that, though it may be the most improbable occurrence, evolution does happen, it explains much of what we did not previously understand about our natural universe, and thus far coincides with every facet of modern science.
It is a lie that there have been no transitional forms found. Countless transitional forms have been found, and more are being uncovered every day. To use this as an argument against evolution is absolutely mindless, and fortunately is one that (to the extent of my knowledge) has been silently discarded among creationist circles.
Again, we run into a problem of narrative when we approach the story of the flood. Two of EVERY species fitting on one water-borne vessel? We can hardly imagine that today. Imagine how many species there were in Noah's time! I'm not saying this story can't be literally true--but I think we can safely say that, according to our scientific findings, a worldwide flood is a far-fetched theory that attempts to explain otherwise-provable phenomena. If scientific reasons against a worldwide flood can be established, then we, as Christians should embrace them, and continue to revere the story of Noah as an invaluable lesson of trust and promise.
Let me wrap this up by saying that there are many, many solid, Bible-believing, born-again Christians who have embraced evolution in their field of study. Francis Collins is the head of the Human Genome Project, which received worldwide recognition for decoding the human gene in the late 90's (one of the most profound scientific breakthroughs in human history). Numerous times in the Bible, we encounter the command to learn about creation, to dig deep into the secrets of the universe, and to delight in the works of God's hands. A Christian can embrace whatever scientific theory comes along, no matter if it's evolutionism or icklezitutionism, as long as scientific data supports it. I would not claim myself to be evolutionist: I would choose, in the words of Francis Collins, "Bio Logos", which basically means "in harmony with science". This allows us to not only say "yes" to evolution as our best guess to explain today's universe, but also acknowledge and open ourselves to the possibility of other explanations in the future, as long as they are backed by solid evidence and wide respect from the scientific community.
As Christians with a missions-oriented mindset, we should constantly try to make our faith relevant and tangible to the unbelieving around us. It is shameful and embarrassing that we have turned down so many seekers based on their scientific beliefs. Faith in Jesus' atoning sacrifice on our behalf is what defines a Christian. Let's focus on the gospel, and not let ignorant interpretation of Biblical texts prevent us from doing so. We can STILL point to the complexity and order in the universe as an evidence of design and purpose. But a desperate attempt to fight science is not the answer. Faith and science should go hand-in-hand, not in opposition to each other.
We should all have solid reasons for believing what we believe. Christians should listen to what atheists and others present as evidence for their belief and consider their words, and others should do likewise. I have not been convinced by other belief systems, because I believe in the reality of original sin and total depravity, and don't see another religion that addresses them as relevantly and realistically as Christianity; however, my mind is open to other ideas and opinions. As Christians, we must search for answers to difficult questions within our own faith by reading the Scriptures, and also by reading works of similar Christians who have struggled with the same questions. While we can trust God's goodness and God's faithfulness to sustain us and work for our best, we must never stop searching for answers: for while our primary goal is to present the gospel to those around us, we must always be honest and critical of ourselves and our own assumptions.
Certainly, there is more to discuss regarding this topic. I'd like to keep the dialogue going here, and to hopefully clear up some discomfort that seems to be surrounding this issue. Agreements, disagreements, or otherwise are welcome. Thanks for taking the time to read this.
My faith is based on the evidence of the world we live in. God doesn't stand outside my front door, proclaiming "I AM!" in bodily, viewable-by-the-human-eye form. But His glory can be dsciovered through creation, which is described as his masterpiece, his canvas, even his mirror. This topic can be discussed more in-depth in another blog post; however, I precede my topic with faith, because it seems that many people (including Christians) have some serious misconceptions about what faith is.
To be certain, part of faith is trusting something, despite the fact that you don't know everything about it. For example: if I am going to sit in a chair, I must have tremendous confidence that it will hold me up without collapsing. Though I have not actually sat in the chair, I can deduce that it will be sufficiently stable, based on the structure of the chair, the size of the chair, and observing the experiences of others who have sat in the same chair. I can then judge for myself whether or not the chair is safe to sit in, and based on that judgment, take action.
Faith is not blind. Faith rests upon solid evidence and careful observation before delving into the not entirely known. Folly would be to look upon the chair, notice loose screws, and perhaps even see others who have caused the chair to collapse, and to choose to place faith in the chair despite it. According to Dawkins, faith is, indeed, folly.
What is our response to this, as Christians? We must, in all things, seek to make our faith believable, relevant, and solidly backed by proof. One key area, which, among American Christians in particular, is greatly lacking, is the area of the harmony of faith and science.
I'm going to start off by giving you what Christians argue, in response to evolution:
1. Evolution is unbiblical. It tells us that the Earth was not created by God in seven literal days, but rather by a tremendous, random explosion, which somehow resulted in life.
2. Evolution leads to atheism, because, if it is true, it disproves the existence or need of any god.
3. Evolution is not scientifically credible, because our natural observations lead us to the inevitable conclusion that a) the earth is 10,000 years old, b) no "missing link" has been found, and d) the chances of a "big bang" or the process of evolution occurring is infinitesimally improbable and therefore unbelievable.
4. No bible-believing Christians believe in evolution: since evolution is unbiblical, Christians who believe it do not consider God's word to be authoritative, and therefore, deny God's power and deity.
I'm going to start with the easy one: Evolution is unbiblical. To begin this argument, we need to establish some things about the Bible itself.
First of all, the Bible IS God-breathed and inspired. I'm not denying that at all. But the Bible is, in it's very essence, a work of literature. And many decently-written works of literature has several different writing styles within them: poetry, satire, metaphor, narrative, parable, and so on. It doesn't take a well-trained Biblical scholar to notice something strikingly synchronized and, dare I say it, poetic about Genesis 1. Without a shred of a doubt, these opening passages of the Bible are not your everyday historical account. There are verses, choruses, and various repeated syncopations. I don't need to press the point any further here: Genesis 1 IS a poem, and the only evidence one needs is to read it aloud.
With that in mind, we can draw some conclusions:
1. We can say that, since it is a poem, chances are that every historical detail is not precisely laid out accurately or even chronologically. Poetic language is expressive, not informative. Words used in poems often have different meaning than they would if used in a literal context. The word "Day", for example: when an elderly person recounts the adventures he had in his youth, he may start his stories by saying "Well, back in MY day..." This, obviously, does not mean that his youth lasted for one day, and one day only. Rather, "day" is used to describe years, even decades, of passed time. In other Biblical passages, when "the DAY of the Lord" is described, they are not describing the one single 24-hour period that God will have all to himself--obviously, they are referring to the time of God's victory, his vengeance against wrongdoing, and his rewarding of righteousness. With this in mind, how can we possibly assume that "day" can't possibly mean something similar in these opening passages? What makes this poem different from all the others? In addition to this, DAYS aren't even possible without the presence of a sun to rotate around--since the earliest days of humanity, days have been defined by the sun's rise and set. How can there be a "day", when the very definition of "day" had not yet even been made possible? Light and darkness aren't created until the fourth day, and it says: "Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years."
2. In light of this, we can accept a variety of theories on how the universe first came about. One such theory is the dreaded Big Bang, which has become, to many Christians, the antithesis of their most beloved truths. Evolution is made possible, because we are not confined to the ludicrous theory that the earth HAD to have been created in seven literal 24-hour periods. God could have just as easily been the force behind the initiation of the universe, making sure everything happened just so, in order that human life would eventually be made possible.
I believe enough has been said in this point, so I will therefore carry on to the next topic: Evolution and atheism?
A book I read a while ago, called "The Language of God", written by Francis Collins, discusses this topic well. God, being a spiritual being, and theoretically speaking, the inventor of matter, cannot, therefore, be disproved scientific means. There may be reasons to disprove God, and there may be reasons to prove God (and discerning Christians should lend their ears and minds in BOTH directions, by the way). I believe that evolution is a powerful example of the complexity and incomprehensibility of God's design in nature. That he would use such spectacular means to bring about his creation is absolutely astounding, and no less than awe-inspiring to me. In no way does evolution limit or reduce God's omnipotence; rather, if God is the author of creation, it is another manifestation of his inconceivability.
Evolution doesn't lead to atheism any more than it leads to rheumatism. Objective analysis of scientific data leads only to neutral agnosticism--the existence of God can be neither confirmed nor denied by scientific methods.
Creationists might question the scientific probability of the theory of evolution, however, they face an entire field of study whose very foundation and progress is based on this theory. Just because something is improbable doesn't make it impossible. Scientific research has shown that, though it may be the most improbable occurrence, evolution does happen, it explains much of what we did not previously understand about our natural universe, and thus far coincides with every facet of modern science.
It is a lie that there have been no transitional forms found. Countless transitional forms have been found, and more are being uncovered every day. To use this as an argument against evolution is absolutely mindless, and fortunately is one that (to the extent of my knowledge) has been silently discarded among creationist circles.
Again, we run into a problem of narrative when we approach the story of the flood. Two of EVERY species fitting on one water-borne vessel? We can hardly imagine that today. Imagine how many species there were in Noah's time! I'm not saying this story can't be literally true--but I think we can safely say that, according to our scientific findings, a worldwide flood is a far-fetched theory that attempts to explain otherwise-provable phenomena. If scientific reasons against a worldwide flood can be established, then we, as Christians should embrace them, and continue to revere the story of Noah as an invaluable lesson of trust and promise.
Let me wrap this up by saying that there are many, many solid, Bible-believing, born-again Christians who have embraced evolution in their field of study. Francis Collins is the head of the Human Genome Project, which received worldwide recognition for decoding the human gene in the late 90's (one of the most profound scientific breakthroughs in human history). Numerous times in the Bible, we encounter the command to learn about creation, to dig deep into the secrets of the universe, and to delight in the works of God's hands. A Christian can embrace whatever scientific theory comes along, no matter if it's evolutionism or icklezitutionism, as long as scientific data supports it. I would not claim myself to be evolutionist: I would choose, in the words of Francis Collins, "Bio Logos", which basically means "in harmony with science". This allows us to not only say "yes" to evolution as our best guess to explain today's universe, but also acknowledge and open ourselves to the possibility of other explanations in the future, as long as they are backed by solid evidence and wide respect from the scientific community.
As Christians with a missions-oriented mindset, we should constantly try to make our faith relevant and tangible to the unbelieving around us. It is shameful and embarrassing that we have turned down so many seekers based on their scientific beliefs. Faith in Jesus' atoning sacrifice on our behalf is what defines a Christian. Let's focus on the gospel, and not let ignorant interpretation of Biblical texts prevent us from doing so. We can STILL point to the complexity and order in the universe as an evidence of design and purpose. But a desperate attempt to fight science is not the answer. Faith and science should go hand-in-hand, not in opposition to each other.
We should all have solid reasons for believing what we believe. Christians should listen to what atheists and others present as evidence for their belief and consider their words, and others should do likewise. I have not been convinced by other belief systems, because I believe in the reality of original sin and total depravity, and don't see another religion that addresses them as relevantly and realistically as Christianity; however, my mind is open to other ideas and opinions. As Christians, we must search for answers to difficult questions within our own faith by reading the Scriptures, and also by reading works of similar Christians who have struggled with the same questions. While we can trust God's goodness and God's faithfulness to sustain us and work for our best, we must never stop searching for answers: for while our primary goal is to present the gospel to those around us, we must always be honest and critical of ourselves and our own assumptions.
Certainly, there is more to discuss regarding this topic. I'd like to keep the dialogue going here, and to hopefully clear up some discomfort that seems to be surrounding this issue. Agreements, disagreements, or otherwise are welcome. Thanks for taking the time to read this.
posted by John Mark at 6:22 PM
7 comments
