15 Comments so far

1. steve martin on October 10, 2007 6:46 pm

   Hi Vance,

   On your proposed statement on which all Christians could agree, the American Scientific Affiliation (ASA) has produced a statement that may fit your need - or at least be a starting point (see: http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Evolution/commission_on_creation.html). The ASA is a group of over 2000 scientists who support the integrity of scripture. Although I think the most prominent origin belief of this group is EC, there are a very large number of OECs (or progressive creationists), and even a tiny YEC contingent. Each group provided their own distinctive statement as an addendum, but there was a portion of the statement which they all signed. It is the following:

   General Statement on Creation:
   1. God is the creator of all things.
   a. All things were created through the Word. (Jn1:1-3; Col 1:15-20)
   b. God is both transcendent over creation and immanent in creation. (1 Kg 8:27)
   c. God continually upholds all of creation. (Col 1:17; Heb 1:3)
   d. God is continually creating. (Ps 104:29-30)

   2. God is as active in “natural” events as in “miraculous” ones.
   a. God is intimately and actively involved in what we perceive as “natural” or “law-governed” processes. (Amos 4:6ff; Mt 5:45)
   b. God is in control of “random” or “chance” events. (1 Kg 22:17-38; Prov 16:33; Ac 1:21-26)

   3. God actively cares for His creation.
   a. God declares all that He has made very good. (Gen 1:31)
   b. The earth is the Lord’s possession. (Ps 95:1-5)
   c. All creation praises God. (Ps 148)
   d. God sustains and provides for His creation. (Job 38-41, Ps 104)

   4. All Creation is the object of God’s redemptive plan.
   a. God so loved the world that He became incarnate. (Jn 3:16-17; Jn 1:1-18)
   b. Creation groans in anticipation of redemption. (Rom 8:18-22)
   c. Creation rejoices at the promise of God’s judgment. (Ps 96:11-13)

   5. We humans are given stewardship responsibility over creation.
   a. We are uniquely created to be God’s image bearers. (Gen 1:27)
   b. Old Testament law protected the land and animals. (Sabbath, land sabbath)
   c. We exercise control over creation as stewards who must give an account. (Gen 1:26-30)
   d. We have a responsibility toward one another. (Lev 19:18; Mt 22:39-40)

   6. Scientific study of the natural world can be a spiritual calling in service to God. (1 Kg 4:29-34)
   a. God has created a physical universe which can be understood and studied by us, God’s image bearers. (Ps 19:1-4; Eccl 1:13)
   b. The call to stewardship includes a call to study and understand the creation. (Gen 2:10-20; Eccl 1:13)

   7. Scientific description and divine action need not be in conflict.
   a. A scientific description of an event or process does not diminish God’s active control of that event or process.
   b. How we describe scientifically God’s creative activity is a matter of dispute; that God is creator of all things is not.

2. Josh on October 11, 2007 9:37 am

   Vance,

   Just to clarify before I begin, I wanted to make sure that we are talking about the same thing. Because I have often been ignorant of the theory of evolution so please tell me if this explanation is what you mean (and the signers of the Clergy Letter). Perhaps I do not have a good enough grasp on the theory of Evolution, but does it not function (I’m simplifying it, and mainly referring to non-vegetational organisms) in this way:

   An organism exists and reproduces itself, mutations occur in their offspring, some are beneficial for the survival of it, are not. The mutations that take place at the sub-atomic level are random and are just “chance” occurrences. Those offspring who have the beneficial mutations survive and reproduce, those who do not die off. Now after millions (sometimes more sometimes less) years these mutations have gradually changed the original species so much that they become a new species in themselves. Depending on the amount of resources, competition, environmental conditions, and access to breeding mates, certain species will begin to die off while others will survive. These random mutations (which we would probably call or see as adaptations to the organism’s environment) account for the vast amount of diversity of life on the earth.

   Would this (and I’m assuming it’s the view you hold to as well, correct me if I’m wrong) view hold to the idea that God used evolution in His creative process, in the sense that God just “set everything up” and allowed the universe to take its course?

   So they would hold to the idea that God is transcendent Creator, but insomuch as He created and exists outside the systems (i.e. physics, biology, etc) in which He originated? He can in fact actively engage in the systems in which He created (i.e. He isn’t “a far away God”), but they would disagree that when the Bible says, “God spoke something into existence” that it was speaking in terms of a chronological time frame. Rather they would say that it was giving a summary of events that would provide categories of thought for human reality, not a word for word literal history of events.

   This sounds good but I have three initial problems with it. It seems impossible to think that the Jews (the people who originally received the Scriptures) would have interpreted this way. This seems to follow along through King David and the Apostle Paul, and up roughly 1800 years latter throughout Church history. It seems extremely unlikely that any of the inspired writers would hold to this view especially in light of such intimate prayers and confessions found in the Psalms. If God used evolution in the sense that I described above (correct me if I’m wrong on my understanding of it please), then it would be more accurate to say that God is more of a mad scientist mixing and matching things until he finds the one that works rather than a Master weaver who carefully and perfectly wove us in our mothers womb.

   The second difficulty I have with this type of mentality is that it leads to producing “a God of gaps”, because if we are merely inserting God where science cannot explain reality (i.e. as the “first cause” or at the sub-atomic level) then it seems Richard Dawkins is right when he says that “God is running out of places to hide”.

   Thirdly from this framework it seems much more logical to become an atheist because evolution removes the tension of the problem of good and evil. Despite what most people think atheists do not have a problem explaining good and evil, if they assume an evolutionary framework. I have talked to a few educated atheists and this is how they would explain evil, this particular discussion had to do with the question “is war evil?”, it was originally posted on the Stand to Reason blog addressing “The Problem of Good”:

   “Speaking hypothetically, war only becomes “evil” when we are conditioned (whether from personal or second hand exposure) to its effects. The idea itself is neutral (like ice cream); it’s merely all the baggage (death, suffering, etc) that’s attached to it that causes us to view it as evil.
   Which ultimately would mean that the reason we think war is evil is because of the death/suffering that it brings. And we ultimately only think those things are bad because we have been conditioned through the process of evolution to avoid pain (because depending on the degree/severity of pain [speaking in terms of biology, i.e. nerves] this may lead to death) in order that we may reach the prime directive (i.e. to reproduce ourselves and thus continue the species existence) that is driving the human race from being annihilated.
   Things like valor, bravery, and honor are merely illusions that our brain has evolved to “trick us” so that we will think we have a purpose in life, because those organisms that have a “purpose” will have a better chance of reaching the prime directive than those who do not. So “good” is actually an “illusion” that evolution has developed to “trick us” into giving us a purpose in hopes of keeping us alive long enough to reach the prime directive.”
   So it seems to me (and many atheists) if evolution is true (in the way that it was described above), then it removes any need for God because all things can be explained away in a materialistic way.
   Now I am sure you have thought this through and wrestled with these issues so I feel as though I don’t adequately understand the angle in which you are coming from and I would greatly like to understand this view point. I mean no offense and I hope you can help me to understand how you would deal with those three issues.
   Thanks.
   Your brother in Christ,
   -Josh

3. vancemac on October 12, 2007 10:06 am

   Josh, thank you for your very thoughtful and interesting comments. Your understanding of how evolution works is pretty solid. There are a lot of other variables, including punctuated equilibrium that allows for faster transitions, etc, but overall a very good summary.

   As for the role of God, we have to always keep in mind God’s omniscience. When God created the world in which things happen “randomly”, He did so already knowing exactly how those “random” things would turn out. In fact, the reality would be a strange mix of randomness and determinism, since there were an infinite number of ways God could have set it up to operate, options with every possible outcome. And God chose to start THIS particular ball rolling, knowing exactly how it would all turn out, both generally in terms of how things would develop and particularly in terms of how every person would react. So, in that sense, was it really random at all? Also, I think most theistic evolutionists (or evolutionary creationists, as some prefer), would say that there is nothing in the concept which precludes God from being entirely interactive with His creation when and where and how He chooses. Actually, the fact that God points out where He specifically intervenes seems to establish the fact that God does not ALWAYS intervene. When a leaf falls from a tree into a stream, the erratic path that it follows is determined by natural laws God established (or created in a way in a way in which they developed), but we do not think of God’s finger on the leaf moving it around. Each action of the leaf is both random and determined, if you see what I mean.

   As for what the writers and the early readers of Scripture would have thought of the concept of evolution, it is hard to say, but I am not sure it matters. We know that the authors of the early Genesis texts did not think they were describing the events using strict literal historical narrative, since that was not even a genre that existed at the time. Folks simply didn’t tell the accounts of such events in that way. So, I suspect that they did not have a fully realized vision of the events, but viewed them as bigger, less understandable events, and were content with that. They know the WHO and the WHY, but didn’t really talk about the WHEN and the HOW. We don’t like to allow such mystery about our “history” nowadays. But you are correct, as we go on later through time, as historical writing actually develops (remember, it was Herodotus who is called the “father of history”), then people started looking back at those texts and, I would say, misinterpreting them. And this could definitely include folks within the NT time itself. They could still get the true message of Genesis 1 and 2 (which, not surprisingly, is written in a way to make sure the true message is there for all ages), even if they get the literal/figurative distinction entirely wrong.

   On your second point, I agree entirely with the danger of the “God of the Gaps”, and that is why creationism is heading down the wrong path. Theistic Evolution does not do that. We accept that God is the creator of all as a matter of faith, and not a deduction of science. There is no need to use God to plug in a gap because God is behind it ALL. We do not reach our conclusion that God must be the first cause on the grounds that we have not yet discovered the initial abiogenesis causation. We say God was the first cause because of our faith. So, whatever that abiogenesis event ends up looking like, we will just say “ah, THAT is how God did it!”.

   On your third issue, you are correct that ever since evolution has been explained, some atheists have attempted to use its principles to support a disbelief in God. And, yes, it does make it “easier”. But most evolutionary biologists would disagree with the quote you provided, saying that there is nothing inherent about the biological process that requires those psychological theories. We have seen case after case of things that were once considered to be supernatural later explained in natural terms and, thus, no longer “needing” God to be the direct actor. Take the rainbow, which we now can understand as light refraction. Some can say that this knowledge obviates the need for God to create the rainbow and give the accompanying promise. Yet, we as Christians still believe that God is the author of the rainbow, and still believe in the promise, despite the fact that we now know HOW God does it.

   Is there anything less miraculous about the birth of a child now that we know all about sperm and eggs and the exact biological process of cell development? We now see “behind the curtain” in so many areas, and yet our sense of awe and wonder at the miraculous nature of God’s Creation is not diminished. And, to me, trying to visualize the massive complexity and yet the awesome simplicity of how evolution has shaped life on this planet has brought me to a new awareness of God’s immensity as well as his immediacy.

4. Earle Jones on October 15, 2007 12:15 am

   Ordained Minister, Universal Church.

5. VanceH on October 17, 2007 2:28 am

   It is really encouraging that we are starting to see significant numbers of Christians that are willing to stand up against the conventional wisdom in evangelical circles. I disagree with you in that I don’t believe this topic belongs in the “non-essential” category–for a different reason than the Creationists. I think the cause of Christ is being hindered by the evangelical church’s anti-science stance–and that seem essential to me.

6. vancemac on October 17, 2007 10:30 am

   I agree that it definitely can be essential in the sense you speak of. I was referring more to whether the issue of origins was a “salvation” issue, and one that we should be theologically dogmatic about. Here is another post on that point which stresses your belief in its impact:

   http://submerging.reclaimingthemind.org/blogs/2007/09/04/creationism-v-evolution-the-danger-of-misplaced-dogmatism/

7. steve martin on October 17, 2007 12:16 pm

   Hi Vance,

   It seems to me that the Clergy Letter project is not necessarily broadly representative of North American Protestant churches. (I see that they set it up so you can query by state & not by province - therefore implicitly snubbing Canada - but I digress ). In my quick perusal through the signees, it seems that Evangelicals are grossly underrepresented, and churches that are definitely not Evangelical are over represented (eg. Unitarian Universalist). Questions for you:

   1. Do you agree with the above assessment that Evangelicals are very underrepresented?
   2. If so, do you agree that this makes this very difficult (read: almost impossible) for those of us in the Evangelical tradition to use this as a selling point to our constituency? Many Evangelicals will simply state: “Ah, yes, those Liberals would believe that – all the more reason to go the other way”. I obviously don’t agree with this “guilty by association” conclusion, but do you agree that it might not be helpful to us?
   3. Do you know of any similar project and/or statement by Evangelicals, whether clergy or not?

   Thanks,

8. vancemac on October 17, 2007 12:28 pm

   I don’t know of any similar statement by evangelicals, other than on an individual basis.

   It may very well be true that many evangelicals will consider any Presbyterian, Lutheran and Episcopalian, being “high church” groups as liberal, but do Baptists and Methodists have that reputation as well? Maybe so.

   Even so, I think it is still an important “selling point” for my promotion of “avoiding dogmatism”, since these are denominations still do make up a core segment of Christianity. This undermines the evolution=atheism concept and points out that those with strong orthodox Christian beliefs can and do accept evolution.

   So, while it may not convince anyone to accept evolution (and I am not sure that is the intent), it might help put the debate in the proper context.

9. Josh on October 17, 2007 12:52 pm

   Vance,

   This ideology changes your whole view of Scripture doesn’t it? Because at what point are you going to say that Genesis is historical, chapter 12 with Abraham? Speaking purely on the text (I realize there is very little natural evidence for a global flood) what would you do with the flood? It seems that Jesus recognizes the story of Noah (Matthew 24:37-39 Luke 17:26-27) as historical and Peter (the inspired writer) reiterates the historicity of the flood as being global (2 Peter 2:4-5). As was the writer of Hebrews (Hbr 11:7) So it seems to me that you have to do some serious reworking of what you would describe as “Inspired” because what you seem to be implying is that they were wrong.

   So ultimately it seems what it comes down to is what your definition of inspired, inerrant, infallible (whatever you want to call it is) and the methodology and presupposition behind your exegetical technique.

   Perhaps I have mis-understood, if I have please correct me.

   Your brother in Christ,

   -Josh

10. vancemac on October 17, 2007 1:18 pm

    I think you have to take each text in Scripture on its own regarding historicity. Calvin thought that Job was probably not historical, but that did not lead him to doubt the historicity of other texts, much less to doubt change any doctrinal issues as a result.

    So, you look at each passage in Genesis and determine the nature of the genre. The first creation story is very different than the second, and these are very different than the other pre-patriarchal stories, and those patriarchal stories are different than the Chronicles, which are different than Acts, etc. We have to take each text in its historical, cultural and literary context and determine (to the extent that it is important to do so) the degree or nature of the historicity.

    We tend to view the Bible as a single book, handed to us on a platter. The Scripture is more of an anthology, a gathering of texts from periods as different as ancient Celtic tales are to modern history books. Remember that Abraham was nearly as old to Paul as Paul is to us.

    And, so we must also consider the way in which Jesus or Paul would have treated these texts and stories which were already ancient to them, from a LONG bygone era. No matter the degree to which they believed they were literal history, they would have discussed them exactly as they did. These stories would be considered true and important in every way, even if they did not even consider that they were “literal” or not. They just did not think that way, although it is true that they were coming to more and more right during Paul’s time. It would be very possible for them to write and talk about past events told in a symbolic or typological manner the same way we would talk about strictly literal historic events.

    Consider this analogy. Let’s say you were to give a sermon about the Good Samaritan or the Prodigal Son. Now, you could go through the entire sermon speaking of these characters in EXACTLY the same way someone would a literal historical character, such that someone hearing you could easily believe that you considered them absolutely historical. You could make comparisons and references of every type and it would make perfect sense, be entirely legitimate.

    We don’t know the degree to which a first century Jew would consider the ancient accounts as strict literal historic narrative, but my best educated guess is that they would not really think of such things the way we do. The story is TRUE, but the degree of its historicity was not a matter of much thought or concern. We have a hard time getting our modern heads around this today.

    The important thing about this Clergy Letter Project is that it highlights the fact that millions of Christians around the world, including Protestant Christians, do not have a problem in the least seeing early Genesis as figurative and symbolic, and yet holding to the clear historicity of the Gospels and Acts, etc. It is not the slippery slope that many fundamentalists want to claim.

11. vancemac on October 17, 2007 1:25 pm

    Oh, btw, I would like to take the time to plug Steve Martin’s excellent site on this topic as well:

    http://evanevodialogue.blogspot.com/

    Evangelicals coming to grips with evolution.

12. Steve on December 9, 2007 12:23 am

    I know I’m late to this, but I just wanted to say, “Vance, you’re still at it!”

    You may remember me from the Christian Forums, where I posted under the name Didaskomenos. Had some pretty good times back in the day. I don’t have to tell you that I agree with your sentiments on this issue. Thanks for holding the torch.

13. vancemac on December 10, 2007 4:10 pm

    Thanks! You can check out the “creation/evolution” tag on this site for a few more articles on the subject. I learned a lot on Christian Forums and remember you well, of course!

14. karon on February 8, 2008 11:17 pm

    I can see no reason to join the side of evolutionist in due time the whole concept will become a farce and you will have misled so many people. If you can not by faith accept the creation story then why should you believe that Christ rose from the dead. Then we are all dead in our sins. We will all stand before God one day and give an account of our actions this is a scary prospect for all of us. I for one see no reason to accept evolution as it has not yet been proven.

15. vancemac on February 11, 2008 8:04 pm

    It has nothing to do with faith, but with how we interpret Scripture and how we interpret the evidence from God’s Creation itself. It is not as if I am accepting evolution because I lack sufficient faith to accept creationism. If I was convinced that the Bible described the young earth creationist concepts, I would accept them, and just figure we have it all wrong scientifically. I have complete and utter faith in Scripture, I just think it says something very different than you do.

    But, since I believe that the Bible is actually silent on the HOW and WHEN of God’s creative work, then I see no reason to reject the scientific explanation any more than I would reject photosynthesis.

    I think much more damage to the Gospel message is being done by the Young Earth Creationists than by a theistic evolution point of view.