Science in Christian Perspective
The Student Corner
Evolution: Before and After
DAVID J. EVANS
Stanford University
Stanford, California 94305
From: JASA 26
(September 1974): 123-125.
The Controversy
It all began with the fierce battle between William Jennings Bryan and Clarence
Darrow in the Scopes Monkey Trial Case: the Bible beaters against the godless
heretical scientists. The issue remains unsolved today as we continue wrestling
with the issue of teaching creation theory" in the public schools.
The origin of the human species has caused a great deal of
controversy for a long
time. This "debate" on human origins has been carried on in
my own mind
for some years and has recently taken a strong turn,
undoubtedly not its last. Being both a devout Christian and an
interested science
major, I felt the need to reconcile these two descriptions to a
rational composite
view. Obviously the radical extremes of any argument are wrong.
Exactly what position
on this controversy reflects reality I may never know, yet I have at least set
my mind at ease for the present. I will attempt to put forth here
both the inputs
from science and religion on this topic and relate the conclusions drawn from
these inputs which determined my former and present attitudes.
Before
My original position held Darwinian evolution in some contempt and
was based primarily
on my own "Biblical interpretation." As I looked at Darwin, certain
negative points stood out. Darwin's theory of natural selection
depends upon the
selection of those gene pools which reproduce more efficiently over those gene
pools which have fewer progeny and subsequently die out. Beneficial changes in
the genetic makeup of a given organism come about by gene
recombination or mutation,
according to Darwin. This theory, it seemed to me, could never account for man
being anything more than the best animal on the earth. If man were
just an animal,
then we might possibly be controlled by nothing more than instinct
and surroundings.
This possibility gives support to the theories of behavioralists such as B. F.
Skinner. These behavioralists assume that men are completely
controlled by their
environment' and can therefore in no way be influenced by a supernatural God.
They hold that God is dead and that man is a social, but not a
spiritual, being.
My Christian faith could obviously never tolerate these assumptions; therefore,
I began to dismiss the theory of evolution. It was also apparent to
me that natural
selection was not actually creative, merely selective, and I felt it
was necessary
for God to create a spirit in men, so that we might know God personally as no
other animal could. The animalistic picture of man, the control of man by his
environment, and the lack of creativity in natural selection all
pointed me away
from confidence in Darwin's theories.
My former position was mainly formulated from my interpretations of Scripture
and personal feelings on the nature of man. The Bible clearly speaks (Genesis
1:26,27) of God creating a very special creature in his own likeness,
a creature
who can know God personally, a spiritual being. To my thinking, this spiritual
quality of man could never have come about by natural selection, but only by a
special act of God. Also, as a Christian with feelings, concerns, and an active
faith, I did not like to think of myself as merely the "end of
the line"
of primate development. I considered myself to be the special creature molded
by God's own hand described in Genesis, and allowed this prejudice to affect my
judgment of evolution.
My original stance held that Darwin was probably wrong. I felt he may have been
partially correct, but was certainly wrong about man himself. The
mere initiation
of evolution by the formation of one protein from free component particles was
extremely improbable,2 and I considered this additional grounds to
reject Darwin
partially. Darwin apparently left man as merely an intelligent animal, at the
mercy of Skinner and his associates in behavioral psychology. I could
never tolerate
Skinner's approaches, which completely ruled out God's existence, not
to mention
his sovereignty over men's lives. Scripture seemed to me to point to a special
creation of the only truly spiritual creatures on earth. This
attitude along with
my feeling of being personally special to God and not wanting to fit into any
Darwinian pigeon holes, directed me away from the popular scientific
explanation
of man's origin and toward a more literal conservative position on
Genesis. Exactly
how much of Genesis was plain fact and how much was Biblical symbolism I had no
idea,
but I had adequate confidence in my own understanding to contend with certain
conclusions drawn from evolutionary theory.
I had asserted that God could have used evolution to a point, but that evolution could not explain spirituality in terms of natural selection and genetic alterations.
After
My original position on evolution was not the
strongest of my convictions and I was open to new ideas. My feelings
have recently
altered primarily due to new evidence, which might be classified as
"scientific,"
though not "scientismic." New inputs came as a result of enrollment
in an Undergraduate Seminar on "Issues in Science and Religion." The
readings and discussions in this seminar led to a clear change in my attitude.
I realized that my former position rested on the necessity of a
"God-of-the-gaps."
Due to a lack of knowledge concerning the "how" of man's
spirituality,
I said that, "God did it," just as the Greeks accounted many things
to mythological gods simply because of their own lack of understanding. I had
asserted that God could have used evolution to a point, but that
evolution could
not explain spirituality in terms of natural selection and genetic alterations.
This kind of thinking sounds much like invoking a god for
"gap-filling."
Was I not being contradictory by allowing Darwin a certain area in which he was
correct, yet cutting him off at an arbitrary point prior to the
emergence of man,
without a sound reason? As Malcolm Jeeves wrote,
...
there is in principle no conflict between Christian faith in general
and the discovery
of a scientific mechanism for creation. When people (both atheists and theists)
say that evolution (as a scientific theory) undermines faith, they
are quite wrong.
In principle it cannot do so . . . . When we affirm that God created, we do not
role out the possibility that he did it via a natural process.4
Indeed, I was not permitting God to act in a process that could be
naturally described;
this limitation of God's power of expression in his creation is dangerous and
should be avoided. God's ways are numerous and mysterious; therefore, we must
be forever available to new insights which can point us toward a
better reflection
of reality. If man's spirituality did not come through evolutionary
development,
how did it happen? Was each man injected with a special cosmic
"juice"
at birth or at conception? How did this spiritual "injection" change
a person's makeup? If it occurred during the gestation period, would
the religious
convictions of the mother have an effect on the child? These questions all help
to reveal how nebulous is the idea of a special act of God in instilling each
man's own spirit. There must be a more rational explanation. Possibly God acted
in the way described as evolution to arrive at the physiology of man,
and it was
this unique physiology which overall gave man his spirituality. Not a
single gene
or chromosome, but the inter
workings of the entire body, the makeup of the whole man, was designed by God
in such a way that men could (and do!) know God in a personal,
spiritual, eternal
relationship. Who am I to limit God and determine that he could not have done
this? How wise am I that I know the inner spirit of man to he
definitely otherwise?
Actually, it seemed more reasonable for an orderly God to work within
the framework
of orderly processes.
This new idea sent me back to the Bible to search again for a compatible medium
between literalism and symbolism. In the first account of creation in Genesis
1, God proceeds by a seemingly rational, orderly procession of creative events:
first light and dark, then heaven and earth, then small life and plants, then
complex life and animals in the oceans, then land animals, and
finally man. This
order is one which no scientist would contest. The Genesis 1 account appears to
be chronological when Gen. 1:1-2:3 speaks of the "first
day," "the
second day," etc. These are probably not 24hour days, but they certainly
point toward a chronological order. By looking again at God's word in the Bible
and at his creation out my window, I could see how God's creation was
not haphazard,
but was orderly and could be described in terms of certain
"natural laws."
If man is the pinnacle of God's creation, shouldn't he be the most orderly and
rational being in nature? To explain man's spirituality within creation makes
much more sense than to force the Lord to be a
"God-of-the-gaps," injecting
infants with some nebulous "juice."
I now hold that the resounding truths of evolution
and Genesis are compatibly true. Most importantly, God created.
Whatever the actual
method was, the creator was God, and this is the main point of
Genesis. Evolution
primarily calls for the development of the different organisms found in nature;
this certainly does not conflict with what the Bible tells us. Our
fault is often
that we throw away any scientific evidence that has been used by scientists to
come to an atheistic conclusion. We must ourselves take science's observations
and correlate them with the Truth of God to come to a rational
Christian conclusion.
We must never dismiss what science observes, but should always be critical of
what science assumes and concludes concerning the nature of man.
My Seminar has been an experience which definitely brought me to a
much more comfortable,
reasonable and acceptable position in my thinking concerning
evolution. I am certainly
still open to any suggestions and/or information that can help us to understand
God's world better. We should not be terribly troubled by unanswered questions,
but let us never stop seeking the whole truth. I Corinthians 13:12,13.
REFERENCES
lB. F. Skinner, Beyond Freedom and Dignity.
21. Barbour, Issues in Science and Religion, Prentice-Hall
(1966), p. 387. This calculation does not account for the possible
favorable conditions
present, and thus contributed to the weakness of my original argument.
3
R. H. Bube, Professor, "Issues in Science and Religion,"
Undergraduate Special Seminar 116, Stanford University, Autumn 1972.
4
M. A. Jeeves, The Scientific Enterprise and Christian Faith,
Tyndale (London). 103, (1969)