A timely discussion on evolution, continued...

Biological science is not as consequential as metaphysics. It is less substantial than some of the other sciences, including mathematics and Physics. Perhaps it carries more weight in the field of medicine than any other field, but it still falls short of fulfilling the true need of mankind, communion with God.

But this day and age requires that we understand these more basic sciences because of their metaphysical implications. When speaking to the average, young nonbeliever it is apparent that their metaphysical views have been shaped by their biology teacher. What biology class doesn’t answer the questions that haunt every person? Where do I come from? Why am I here? Where am I going? Who am I? When so many young people turn to science for religion we should prepare ourselves to give a reason for our faith that they can understand. Paul spoke to the gentiles in Greek, and to the Jews in Hebrew. Let us speak to our generation in their language, the language of post modern science.

Concerning evolution, we should make the distinction between the measurable and observable process of natural selection/adaptation and the immeasurable, unobservable molecules-to-man evolution. Both of these processes fall under the category of evolution. To think that organisms are not designed with a genetic flexibility to adapt to their changing environment is to deny what farmers have taken advantage of for thousands of years: if you breed good cattle with good cattle you artificially ‘select’ certain inherent, beneficial characteristics. But to think that after thousands, if not millions, of years of selecting certain breeds one can create a camel from a horse is a stretch of the imagination, and an immeasurable assumption. When we place things in perspective it should baffle us that the current evolutionary thought is that the human body has descended from the breeding of a prokaryote-like organism (bacteria).
Natural selection is part of the evolutionary theory and has been well documented. Organisms breed and certain genetic characteristics are either rearranged or lost. But molecules-to-man evolution assumes that genetic characteristics that did not previously exist are gained over time. This has not been observed, or documented. Currently, the belief that mutations lead to novel genes is the most popular process that evolutionists adhere to in order to explain the increase of information over time. Perhaps in the future I can expound on the plethora of flaws in this model. It would not be difficult, and it could be done by quoting what evolutionists already understand about the limitations of this model.

So, let’s turn to the question, why does it matter? Can’t people simply have a relationship with God regardless of their view of evolution? The simple answer is yes. The more complicated answer is yes, but with difficulty because of the obvious metaphysical implications of the evolutionary theory:
Where do we come from? Random, unintelligent chemical processes that began billions of years ago.
Why am I here? Pure chance.
Where am I going? Nowhere. You live and you die, and if you are ‘fit’ enough you pass on your genes to the next generation.
Who am I? A mass of molecules, unaccountable to anyone.

Because of these obvious contradictions between the biology of evolution and the theology of Christ, it has been offered that God intervened at various moments in the evolutionary process in order to cross the great boundaries between beast and man, or non-life to life. This is what is known as theistic evolution. Assuming God’s intervention in the process, the answers to the above questions change for the better. Problem solved! What’s more, not only does it appear that the problem is solved, but the world applauds you for being so open-minded.

But all that is being done is sprinkling a little bit of Bible over our science textbooks. If we are to be studiers of God's Word, and of the glory of God revealed in His creation, we must be genuine in our pursuit for an answer. If the lower science of biology proposes a view that does not directly lead to the more powerful truths dictated by metaphysics, then we must assume that it is not theology that’s wrong, but biology. Though the sciences are not all equal in consequence, they should be in harmony with one another.
If we sprinkle theology over a person whose existential philosophy is based on natural biological processes we are going to create confused believers that are weak in their faith. The kind of radical twist that must be imposed on evolution for it to adhere to the standards of theists is not a small one. Because of that doubt will tug on the heart of the theistic evolutionist. Most self-respecting, secular evolutionists would never publicly claim that they believe that God intervenes in any way. Why? Because of the dogma that is inherent to evolution that all can be explained through naturalistic processes. A believer that attempts to reconcile these views can be compared to someone trying to keep together the north poles of two magnets, eventually there’s going to be a slip.
Let me put it this way: Picture yourself placing a head of lettuce, a tomato, some raw ground beef, some milk, and a couple of buns in a box. Now picture yourself closing that box. Picture yourself shaking that box a few times. Now, mentally open that box. What do you expect to find? Maybe the lettuce smashed the bread. There’s probably milk everywhere. Some of the meat is sticking to the sides of the box. Now, what if you shook that box a few more times? Would you expect less of a mess or more of a mess? At this point your tomato might have burst open. The bread is soggy with milk and it is falling apart. There are pieces of meat between some of the lettuce leaves. What if I shook this box for a few hours? What if I shook it for a month? A year? A hundred years? A million years? A billion years? Would you ever expect anything more than mushy, rotten, incredibly decayed lumps? Or would you expect that sometime during the shaking the milk curdled into cheese and shaped itself into a perfect square by banging randomly against the sides of the box? Would you expect instead of smashed pieces of tomato flesh to see perfect, razor cut slices? Or the meat, like the cheese, formed itself into a shape by banging against the box, except this time it was a perfect circle, and what’s more the friction from being shaken up caused the patty to cook perfectly without cooking anything else. And so on, and on until you open the box a billion years later and you find a perfect looking cheeseburger?
Evolution teaches that you would a get a cheeseburger. That’s the problem. Now, you can say that God intervenes, but he would have to intervene continually. The moment that He stops the contents of the box will return to their chaotic decay. What you have left is no longer evolution. But what if there is a theory out there that better explains what we see, and aligns itself with what we know of metaphysics and the theology of Christianity? Perhaps the theory, too, has flaws, but like all models in science, we take the best one until someone finds a better one and then we move on. Not only does the creation model (whether young or old earth) adequately explain what we see in nature, but it transitions smoothly into the more important truths that our Christian theology confesses. This leads to intelligent believers that can give a reason for their faith, and a defense against the darts of doubt that they encounter daily. Their view of creation does not have to be dogmatically defended, but they can be at rest with the security that it is in line with natural science, as well as Biblical truths.

Let's make it clear; the Bible is NOT a scientific textbook, as some fundamental creationists might take it to be. I do not believe that it is in any way. I don’t go to the Bible to learn science or engineering. It is not an encyclopedia. But the Bible does help me interpret and shed light on certain things I do know. And that doesn’t have to make a person fundamentalist. The idea that a person is a fundamentalist simply because he or she accepts a view of creation that is more in line with Genesis 1 is fundamental in itself. Can’t it be possible to genuinely, scientifically disagree with the modern theory of evolution and not be labeled as a fundamentalist? What’s wrong with understanding that though Genesis is not a scientific textbook there are current scientific observations that support a more literal model of creation and biogenesis? Also, is there anything wrong with observing our world to see whether or not there is evidence that the creation model might be a little bit more literal than we once thought? And if evidence does support it should we not applaud the research with a sincere and critical eye, rather than condemn the findings as the ranting of fundamentalists? I can’t speak for all creationists. Many of them are fundamentalists. I can speak for myself, and I know that God has taken me on several spiritual roller coaster rides to rid me of my fundamental attitudes that are a detriment to the church, and I do not wish to continue to espouse those attitudes, though I fall short of that often.

Certainly, the creation account was written by men that were limited and fallible. They were scientifically incompetent by our standards. The Hebrew culture didn’t even view the world the way we view it now. Therefore, there are few scientific facts in their writings. Neither was scientific truth the purpose of their writings. But we can assume that what they wrote exceeded their limitations because of God’s inspiration and explicit intervention. We believe the Bible to be infallible. God overcame man’s limit. Man is fallible. Prophets announced future events according to revelation from God. Man is not all-knowing. Even the account of creation must have been handed down to Adam by God. We must trust that there are truths that exceed man’s limitations. The Bible itself is the Story of God
Overcoming Man’s Limitations. That still doesn’t mean that I can go to the Bible and ignore the historical and grammatical context. I cannot assume that everything is literal. But I can assume that there are truths revealed in scripture that didn’t need to be fully comprehended by those that wrote them down. The Bible is revelation.
The purpose of Genesis is an anthropological one, not a scientific one. And though there are some amazing figurative expressions in the book of Genesis (i.e. the parallels between the first three days and second three days of creation), there are also some less important physical propositions that are true about our universe. For example, Biblical allegories are not without the natural laws laid down by God. Jesus’ parables never involved men randomly floating in the air, or fish growing on trees. The laws of Physics were always adhered to. And when crazy-sounding things happened like men growing limbs in seconds, or a fig tree withering away at a word, an intervention by the power of God is directly or indirectly implied. Similarly, the creation account adheres to the laws of nature unless there is an implication that God was involved in influencing them. Because of that we can compare our science to what is true of Genesis.
Yet, even if these models are well expounded and presented no one can intellectually force scientists to acknowledge God. It is part of God’s plan that a measure of faith is involved. The Bible says that God cannot be pleased without faith (Hebrews 11:6). In fact, I would argue that rarely, if ever, does a person come into relationship with God because of an intellectual assessment. The intellect, as well as the rest of the person is involved. I testify that truth through my own experiences.

I always find it interesting when I hear theologians speak on the subject of origins. Oddly enough, most of my Christian friends that hold at least a bachelor's degree from a secular university in some field of science are not the ones that support molecules-to-man evolution. It is from those not scientifically trained that I hear the most support for evolution. Certainly, this is not indicative of the world population, but it never ceases to amaze me. I'm glad that a discussion on this subject has been submitted to this blog. I'm grateful for Anonymous' contributions. Science has been heralded by Christians over the centuries, as Bill so adequately expounded. Ultimately, salvation does not lie in which view of origins you hold, but in Christ. We will all have to answer His question: “but who do you say that I am?”