Science, Evolution, and Faith
“We’re scientists and Christians. Our message to the faithful: fear not.” Op-ed piece in USA Today by Karl Giberson and Darrel Falk, founders of the Biologos website.
“We are trained scientists who believe in God, but we also believe that science provides reliable information about nature. We don’t view evolution as sinister and atheistic. We think it is simply God’s way of creating. Yet we can still sleep soundly at night, with Bibles on our nightstands, resting atop the latest copy of Scientific American.”
“What we learn from science cannot threaten our belief in God as the creator. If God created the universe in a Big Bang 15 billion years ago, guided its development with elegant mathematical laws so that eventually there would be big-brained mammals exploring things such as beauty, morality and truth, then let us celebrate that idea, not reject it.”
If we truly believe what we say we believe, we have nothing to fear from honest science.
Well said. Thanks for posting this Mike.
It shocks me just how many people there are who cannot even begin to grasp this concept, but then again this is the side of the fence I’ve always felt comfortable on.
I believe that we learn about God from scripture AND from the world around us. By studying the creation, we learn more about the Creator. Scripture often backs up what we learn through scientific means, and vice-versa. Another good website that blends science & faith is: reasons.org
It seems that God is getting smaller and smaller. He no longer explains the weather, or illness, or healings, or childbirth, or tsunamis, etc. And he no longer explains creation in 6 days; instead, some put him further back to the big bang. So not only is he smaller, but he is further and further away. Out of sight, out of mind?
But… but… if the first 3 chapters of Genesis aren’t true, then how can any of the rest of the Bible be true?
Or is there a significant difference between “true” and “factual” that our Modernist/Enlightenment minds have trouble distinguishing between, because of how we’ve been trained to read and think about Scripture?
Is God smaller, or is this simply another one of his beautiful mysteries we are only beginning to fathom? The foolishness of God is wiser than anything man can attain – one cannot force God’s hand through a literalist interpretation of the Bible. There is nothing to fear in evolution — except for those who fear the power over their legalism waning.
I just finished Giberson’s book “Saving Darwin” a couple of weeks ago. I enjoyed it and would recommend it.
Great point, Martin! Perhaps we have become too advanced — too enlightened — to bother with God.
@5, statements like that hurt the credibility of Christianity. At least they do for me. Thanks #1.
God gets bigger the more we learn about his awesome creation. The Bible doesn’t teach that the Earth is round, that the Sun is the center of the solar system, that the Earth is billions of years old or that animals evolve to create new species. It also doesn’t teach that those things aren’t true. The Bible is simply not a science book. If we try to make it into one we’ll repeat our embarrassing history of pitting religion against science. Let’s not put Galileo under house arrest for good science that doesn’t match our “scientific” interpretations of the Bible.
Some of God’s words created the universe and others of his words ended up in our Bibles. (Psalm 19) His words don’t conflict because he speaks only the truth. It’s only our interpretations of both that cause the conflict.
Mike, thanks for the great post.
Which requires more faith? Can we begin to understand the Bible as not only a dialogue amongst believers (who were also skeptics, especially in the presence of Christ), but also a dialogue with other faiths? It seems that God has always had to redefine, – or better yet, re-mystify our faith and understanding of God. I believe that the number one agenda of most Christians (or at least the ones with the loudest voices) is being “right”. Being “right” has often times taken the place of being patient, kind, loving, generous, humble, or even Christ like (which would include a larger list of attributes, of course). How many times was Jesus asked a question and he gave the “right” answer? Well, he did give the right answer, but not in the sense that we often times hear or even give others.
Millions left the faith when they discovered that the Earth was not the center of the universe. How could humanity, God’s greatest creation, not be at the center of things? Yet when we, as individuals or as groups, place ideas, beliefs, the “right” answer to questions or concepts the Bible is not trying to answer – our legs of faith get taken out from underneath us when being “right” is more critical than allowing God the ability to work outside our realm of understanding. That is when faith becomes more important than being “right.”
Thanks for posting this Mike, it was a greatly needed reminder.
This has absolutely nothing to do w/ your post, however, since it’s about guacamole I know you’ll forgive me… As a blog reader from the early years, I learned to appreciate the lovelyness of homemade guac (and salsa). Sunday night we had friends coming over to watch our beloved Titans and enjoy some enchiladas, and what, pray tell, goes better w/ enchiladas than chips, salsa and guac? However, living in a back woods town in Middle TN that has only one real grocery store, there were NO AVACADOS to be found. The horror!!! I am obviously still harboring bitter feelings towards Food Lion. So, today as I checked on your latest post, my eyes could see no words, only the incredible bowl of guacamole and chips in your header. Sigh.
I actually think it makes God BIGGER to think that He weaved our universe just right & took lots of time to do it JUST so He could provide us with the right elements to survive. For instance, if the moon wasn’t at JUST the right distance from our planet, we would not have the right gravity to live here. Science shows us that, but God made it so. God is so much more awesome than we can fathom – and the more I learn from science, the BIGGER & more AWESOME God becomes!
As a brother, scientist and professor, I’ve personally progressed through all sides of this issue. I would encourage God-like patience from both the “early adopters” (God waited 15 B years for us) and from those who feel we are in error.
Regarding the comment about God becoming smaller and more distant, it’s interesting that the more I learn about the immensity, intricacy, and improbability of God’s creation, along with his unfathomable timelessness, the bigger and more awesome He seems to me! That He would care about me, as He clearly does, is all the more incredible!
TOM2: I, too, progressed through this issue–slowly and painfully. Now, on the otherside, I see that God was simply an idea in my head–introduced to me by my parents and other well meaning adults–to explain the unexplainable and to give me a kind of meaning for life.
Now, the unexplainable is disappearing quickly, thanks to science. And my “meaning” now comes from elsewhere. No crutches are needed anymore.
God made the avocado. Maybe within six days. Maybe within a few billion years.
Either way, He got it right.
If He’s just waiting for us to get the guacamole right to initiate His family reunion feast where it’s served to as many of His children as possible, I’d rather it’s fewer days from now rather than billions of years from now. But that would mean we all need to get cookin.’
We can ask Him about the other end of eternity at the table.
After the chips get started around, of course.
But wait…I thought Genesis 1-3 was science. Oh yeah…that was just a rather modern projection onto scripture (even though the Bible never once uses the word “science”).
Good post. Perhaps there will be more room for dialogue between theology and science.
Grace and peace,
Rex
Interesting – if we think the earth is the center of the universe we are living in an ignorant bygone era that places too much emphasis on our role in the larger picture of God’s purposes and ways; but if we think we ourselves and our all important wills are the pivot point of salvation we are enlightened and it would be just plain stupid not to see that. I think I’ll have some guacamole and some Pace Picante sauce and some Tostitos with a Shiner Bock.
God could have chosen to create the universe in any way He wanted. There are a lot of euphemisms in the Bible – 40 days and 40 nights may not necessarily mean that specific timeframe. It rained for a long time. God created the world – we don’t know how exactly He chose to do it.
Mike, you through these controversial thoughts out there & seldom give us your take. Why can’t we just believe the book of Genesis? If God wasn’t trying to tell us how he created the earth then what was he doing? Trying to trick us? Evolution into another species is a religion, not science. Go to drdino.com to see how science agrees with the Bible. There is scientific evidence for a young earth, a Biblical flood & dozens of lies in our science textbooks.
Genesis explains the creation of the world and its inhabitants to a pre-scientific people, using fairy tales to do so. Clearly, evolution is a sound theory and the best explanation we have thus far for the origin of species.
There are two basic tenets of science that cannot be proven.
The first is that all rates of change have remained constant (predictable) throughout time. This means that dating the oceans based on the rate of change in salt content can be accurately assessed based on today’s rates. Likewise, techniques based on carbon 14 dating assume a consistent change rate.
Secondly, a basic tenet of science is that natural causes explain everything that happens in the universe. In other words, there is no super-natural. Adding a “God-factor” to explain creation (or any other phenomenon) would be laughed at in any ‘pure’ science environment.
Although there is room for adjustment, I find it difficult to dismiss the Genesis account of creation because of science based on the above unprovable tenets.
Instead, I find it much more plausible that the scientific evidence for the universe being formed from a single source called a black hole actually points to the single source, God. Likewise, the evidence that has caused some to conclude all life came from a single amoeba actually attests to all life came from a single designer/creator.
Creg,
In modern history, Christians have approached Genesis 1-3 asking the question of “How.” The question “how” assumes the text is scientific in nature but considering the fact that this text (and its original hearers) predates the scientific era, I believe the question we should be asking (and the question the text is answering is “Who” and “Why.”
Hope that helps,
K. Rex Butts
Rich,
Then dismiss the Genesis account based on very solid geological facts–as well as what you see every night: stars so far away that it has taken millions of years for their light to arrive to earth.
Martin F.:
Thanks for the feedback.
There are several similarities between the geological records and Genesis 1.
When asking which came first, plant or animal? both agree plant
When asking where did animals begin, on land or in water? both say water
When asking what animal types were created last? both say mammals and more specifically humans.
The bible also talks about one land which may be an indicator of the scientific belief that the continents were at one time all attached and have since moved apart.
I understand that any discrepancies between the two fall into a couple of categories:
1. Possible misinterpretation of the geological records. Scientists are constantly discovering new explanations and theories.
2. We require too much precision in the prescientific narrative of the Genesis record.
I’m okay with literal 24-hour days of creation in Genesis 1, though I am confounded about the source of the light those first three days, presumably before the sun was created the fourth. Was He the source of that light, separated from the darkness? I don’t see why not, but scripture just doesn’t say so.
I’m also okay with days lasting billions of years in Genesis 1, since the earth could have been rotating at a much slower rate while God was working (I have this mental picture of an artist I once saw hand-painting a round Christmas ornament and slowly turning it as he did …), and He could have increased that rate to better serve the needs of His creatures as the “days” progressed (hey, He slowed it for an extra day in response to Joshua‘s prayer).
Always remember that evolution is still a theory. The Genesis account is God teaching us how everything was created. Sure , we can have scripture and we can have science and they can work together to enhance our understanding of the creation. However , have we become so sophisticated and so educated to eclipse faith . I can accept the Genesis account and believe in the miracle power of God. No , not as a myth or fairy tale but as a legitimate sound explanation of creation. God , who can raise the dead can create a world.
Sort of gives new meaning to that fish swallowing the lizard.
No comment from qb on this one?
“[Reason tells me of the] extreme difficulty of rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe, including man with his capability of looking far backwards and far into futurity, as the result of blind chance or necessity. When thus reflecting I feel compelled to look to a First Cause haveing an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve to be called a Theist.” –Charles Darwin, as quoted by Antony Flew in There is a God, p. 106.
I don’t think the authors of the article at hand are at all interested in “dismissing the Genesis account.” Reading scientific principles into Genesis 1 is a “new” (last hundred years) interpretation method. Many historical Christian leaders did not take Genesis 1 to be completely literal. Specifically, there are many who thought the days in Genesis 1 were not 24-hour days: Justin Martyr (2nd century), Irenaeus (2nd century), Origen (3rd century), Cyprian of Carthage (3rd century), and Augustine (5th century), to name a few. Our modern philosophy of “proving” everything has lead to a non-theological interpretation style.
We should ask what God is trying to teach us in Genesis 1. I believe the answer is that God is almighty and the so-called gods of Moses day (animals, nature, celestial bodies, etc.) are all just creations of the almighty creator God, Yahweh. It’s a theological message, not a scientific one. But this does not mean we are dismissing Genesis, only trying to understand it by its original intent.
Ray,
You write, “However, have we become so sophisticated and so educated to eclipse faith.” Hopefully, yes. Why would any sane and reasonable person walk by faith (believing in things you don’t see or have any proof of) rather than by the knowable and provable?
And you say that evolution is a theory? “Theory” does not mean a guess or huntch. Human evolution is fact that can’t be replicated because of the vast amounts of time involved, thus a theory. Do you know why your anti-bacterial soap doesn’t work as much as it once did? It is because those bacteria have evolved. That is a proven fact which can easily be seen in bacteria due to their relatively short lifespans.
I could go either way. I’m still trying to get that love God & love your neighbor stuff down, so I’ll just let things that were here before I got here, be. But I will say, one question I haven’t been able to reconcile is when God mentions Sabbath in Exodus, he makes reference to resting on the 7th day. Obviously those days represented something, whether 24 hour periods or not, and not just an obscure amount of time. But of course we don’t take Sabbath literally either.
But for all you smart guys out there working on this, thanks for using those gifts to somehow point out God and His work in the world. As long as He is the center of it, bring it on.
Jon, when God rested on the 7th day (or period), a giant asteroid killed off all the dinosaurs. That’s what happens when you stay away from your creation for too long. After that, God decided a day should be 24 hours long and not 24 billion years. Earth couldn’t last more than 24 hours without him.
Daniel,
That is the funniest thing I’ve read in quite some time. Nice. Hahahaha
Regarding the Darwin quote – he wrote it to explain his frame of mind when he wrote “The Origin of Species.”
His ultimate conclusions on God and religion are better reflected in his letters and autobiography, parts of which were not published until 1958, due to his negative comments on religion.
Among those conclusions:
from a letter in 1879: “I think that generally (and more and more as I grow older), but not always, that an Agnostic would be a more correct description of my state of mind.”
Darwin once declined having a book dedicated to him since the book advocated atheism. He wrote that “though I am a strong advocate for free thought on all subjects, yet it appears to me (whether rightly or wrongly) that direct arguments against Christianity & theism produce hardly any effect on the public; & freedom of thought is best promoted by the gradual illumination of men’s minds which follows from the advance of science. It has, therefore, been always my object to avoid writing on religion, & I have confined myself to science. I may, however, have been unduly biased by the pain which it would give some members of my family, if I aided in any way direct attacks on religion.”
from a letter in 1873: “I may say that the impossibility of conceiving that this grand and wondrous universe, with our conscious selves, arose through chance, seems to me the chief argument for the existence of God; but whether this is an argument of real value, I have never been able to decide. I am aware that if we admit a first cause, the mind still craves to know whence it came from and how it arose. Nor can I overlook the difficulty from the immense amount of suffering through the world. I am, also, induced to defer to a certain extent to the judgment of many able men who have fully believed in God; but here again I see how poor an argument this is. The safest conclusion seems to me to be that the whole subject is beyond the scope of man’s intellect; but man can do his duty.”
from his unabridged autobiography: “By further reflecting that the clearest evidence would be requisite to make any sane man believe in the miracles by which Christianity is supported, — that the more we know of the fixed laws of nature the more incredible, do miracles become, — that the men at that time were ignorant and credulous to a degree almost incomprehensible by us, — that the Gospels cannot be proved to have been written simultaneously with the events, — that they differ in many important details, far too important as it seemed to me to be admitted as the usual inaccuracies of eyewitness; — by such reflections as these, which I give not as having the least novelty or value, but as they influenced me, I gradually came to disbelieve in Christianity as a divine revelation. The fact that many false religions have spread over large portions of the earth like wild-fire had some weight with me. Beautiful as is the morality of the New Testament, it can hardly be denied that its perfection depends in part on the interpretation which we now put on metaphors and allegories.” (p.86)
“Thus disbelief crept over me at a very slow rate, but at last was complete. The rate was so slow that I felt no distress, and have never since doubted even for a single second that my conclusion was correct.” (p.87)
“I can indeed hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so the plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do not believe, and this would include my Father, Brother and almost all my best friends, will be everlastingly punished. And this is a damnable doctrine.” (p. 87)
For a surprisingly thorough and accurate article, see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin's_views_on_religion#Agnosticism
Darwin was not a theologian; he was a scientist. As a scientist he was thoughtful and thorough and made great strides toward understanding biology “better” (not completely) than it had been understood before. To consider whether his science is valid based on his religious views is illogical.
Keith,
I was not suggesting that we should judge the validity of Darwin’s science by his religious views. That would be akin to judging an astronomer by his views on astrology. I was responding to the quote posted by Frank that left the impression that Darwin’s scientific studies led him to theism. Quite the opposite.
ex-preacher,
I should have looked a bit closer at your first post. Thanks for re-explaining.
I do think Darwin was a bit religiously bipolar. At times he seems very theistic and at other times quite agnostic. I understand that you think the trend is moving from theism toward agnosticism. That may well be; I’m just not sure.
Jeff Walling explained it better than anyone else: If you believe God could make a full-grown man (Adam), why wouldn’t you believe he made a full-grown earth?
I don’t have a problem with those of you who believe that creation is billions of years old and that humans evolved from apes. You may be right.
What bothers me is that you tend to look down on and ridicule those of us who believe that God created the earth (and humans) full grown.
Can you acknowledge that we may be right without criticizing and making fun of us?
Jeffrey,
Amen. Both sides of this discussion should show mutual love and respect for each other. While my experiences lead me to a theistic evolution perspective, yours do not. There is room for different views of creation, but I don’t think there is room for not treating each other in a godly way. Thanks for the reminder! I’m with you 100%.
BTW, love your picture