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:
Evolution is a theory that, itself, is constantly evolving. My dad took out his college Biology book for me to look at from 40 years ago. The ideas in evolution were totally different. Twenty years from today, scientists will look at some points of modern evolutionary theory with criticism.
However, I agree with you that there is a lot of evidence for many forms of evolution. Organisms do change to adapt to changes in the environment on a regular basis. When this does not happen, organisms go extinct. If this did not happen, most (all?) organisms would go extinct every time the environment changed for a prolonged period (it happens pretty regularly).
One thing we do not see which modern biology touts is the widespread spontaneous changes to entire genomes. I have read through many general biology textbooks, molecular biology textbooks, and even hundreds of peer-reviewed articles. I have not ever seen the evidence for such changes. There are, however, many assumptions that these changes do occur through some cycle, which is almost personified and deified when it is referenced.
There has never been any evidence for new genetic information being formed. There is a plethora if proof showing that existing information can be rearranged, turned on and off, and even transferred between organisms in a nearly limitless manner.
I'd love to have a discussion about this some time in person. It's an amazingly interesting topic. I also enjoy discussing the philosophical and moral implications which are often linked to either belief.
REGARDING GENESIS:
I understand those who take it literally and those who read it more figuratively. One thing is certain from reading the Bible: the universe and all that are in it were created by God. It's the means and methods that are up to interpretation.
REGARDING THE BIG BANG:
Literal Creationists don't completely discount the Big Bang. Many merely attribute the single creation of the mass in our universe to a single point and time in the universe. This is consistent with the Big Bang theory. What is not consistent are the thoughts of how much time it actually took. The Biblical Creationists would agree with old-universe theorists that the rapidly-expanding universe had different laws of physics than that exist today. However, they would claim that those different laws may have caused a much more rapid progression of time.
REGARDING FAITH:
Everyone has faith in something. Some people put faith into something without thinking much about it. Others only put their faith into things which they have dedicated significant thought hand believe that they have reasons to believe in that thing. Which is a "blind faith"? I would argue that the blind faith is that thing in which little thought has been dedicated. To many Christians, their belief is a blind faith. However, being a blind faith does not make it any less genuine.
P.S. The new Firefox will catch spelling errors for you while you type. It's really cool! Get Firefox!
hey, thanks for the comment. It is true, that the theory of evolution has itself been constantly evolving. And that's great! It means that scientists are not content with their assumptions, and over the years have constantly pressed and tested their answers.
As far as Biblical interpretation, I would say that, bottom line, we need to remember the purpose of the Bible. It's not to tell us which scientific theories are right and wrong. It's to tell us what God is like, what He wants from us, and how we can thus accomplish his will for us. The important thing about creation is that God invented it, he decided it would happen, and it happened. Whatever the scientific theory, God is behind it all, and is the author of it all.
Good comment J. Quiring. I believe that most of the people professing to believe in evolution do so because they want to explain how we came to be without God, and do not want to answer to God. Those who explain that it all started with the big bang and don't believe in God, are not really thinking. What caused the big bang? Most scientists today don't even believe in the big bang theory. The more we learn from science, we find that it backs up what we already know from scripture.
007, you are making a huge generalization, and face multitudes of bible-believing, born-again Christian scientists who would absolutely disagree with you. I would encourage you to check out some resources by Francis Collins, who I have mentioned numerous times in my blog posts, and Alister McGrath. There is a plethora of information on this subject besides those two, of course. It is absolutely false that the only reason anyone would believe evolution is to discredit the existence of God. Science, in it's bare, raw, unbiased form, does NOT lead us to God, and does NOT lead us to atheism. It only leads us to factual information about how our universe works. How can ANY evidenced-based, well-reseached scientific theory jeopardize our belief in God? If we discover something about our universe, can we not give credit to God for putting it together that way?
In my experience, Creationists have plenty of theories, ideas, and arguments against evolutionist, but they suffer from an extreme ignorance that hinders the greater scientific community from taking them seriously.
Science MUST be approached with clarity of mind and openness to unexpected possibilities. Something as seemingly far-fetched as evolution could, in fact, be true, if enough evidence supports it (and over the years, evidence has continued to do so). After all, who are we to limit the possibilities of God's creativity and intelligence?
It is 100% possible to be evolutionist scientifically and believe in total depravity, original sin, the need for redemption, and the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ on our behalf.
John Mark: I believe that certainly it is possible that God created the universe by using evolution. And I also believe that if God wanted to do it all in six 24-hour periods, that is certainly possible too. I suppose we will never know for sure which way He did it until we get to Heaven. And really it isn't a top priority for me. I just don't like to see people believe something because unbelieving scientists say it is this way, when they very easily can be wrong. Ask yourself, "Is this the first question, I am going to ask God when I see Him?" Probably not, we will be in awe of his greatness, holiness, mercy and love.
Just to add to Mr. Quiring's first point of the theory of evolution being constantly "evolving," and therefore changing--we know that God's Word does not change, but is the same yesterday, today and forever. We just need to be sure we are interpreting it correctly. I have watched several video lectures by a Christian paleontologist, and he believes and argues that the world is not millions or billions of years old, but thousands as most Bible scholars believe. Again, I am not argueing either way, but I really haven't been exposed to many "Christian" arguments supporting evolution. That is why I am interested in your point of view. I can tell you have given this quite a bit of thought.
007, every single thing you have said is absolutely false.
Post a Comment
<< Home