Science in Christian Perspective

Biology Teachers' Views on Evolution, Possible Distinctions of Theistic Views

Covenant College
Scenic Hwy
Lookout Mtn, GA 30750

From: PSCF 47 (September 1995): 177-185.

A questionnaire study indicates little inclination toward deistic evolution among biology teachers at Christian academic institutions. There is nevertheless a need to distinguish more clearly between a theistic position and the currently prevailing nontheistic theory of origins. The tendency of nontheistic scientists to use the theory of evolution as a basis for the assertion that there is no God could then be addressed more effectively. Deistic and atheistic components of the current theory should be challenged. Pure chance, or molecules which spontaneously organize themselves without divine control, for example, are not compatible with a theistic view.

The first stage of this study was to assess, via questionnaires, the views of Christian biology teachers on creation and evolution. The hope was to find a common Christian perspective from which to operate. Next the paper seeks to identify some ways in which a theistic model should differ from a deistic one or the currently accepted atheistic model. Hopefully, we could then agree as to what elements of the currently accepted (atheistic) model need to be questioned by Christians. If a clearly distinctive theistic view were taught, then it would be less vulnerable to being extrapolated to evolutionism (evolutionary naturalism). A deistic model, however, is probably more of a threat to Christian students than an atheistic one because they would be more likely to unknowingly embrace a deistic view.

Questionnaire results

Several years ago while attending a conference of Christian biology teachers at which evolution and other topics were discussed, I became interested in doing this study. Some of the more outspoken participants seemed satisfied with the currently accepted view on the evolution issue, which is not favorable for theism. It appeared that they were accepting this view and seeing it as God's method for creation, perhaps intending to accommodate themselves to a complementarism approach. (See question 2 of the questionnaire in the appendix.)

An attempt to fit the current nontheistic model into a theistic perspective could be considered a compatibilist strategy (Hasker, 239,243), which does not recognize any fundamental tension between the assumptions of a discipline and those of the Christian faith. A transformationist finds the discipline to be lacking in insights and perspectives that are vital to a Christian. Therefore, a transformationist strategy is needed in this case.

Questionnaires were sent to biology teachers at Christian Schools International high schools and Christian College Coalition colleges. They were returned from about 55% of 80 colleges and 47% of 98 high schools. (The percentage of colleges is not exact because the college of a few respondents was uncertain). It is difficult to give a rate of return for the total number of college questionnaires for the following reasons. A varying number of questionnaires (one, two, or three), based on the enrollment, was sent to the colleges, and recipients were encouraged to make additional copies if needed. Secondly, there was a question in which faculty members could indicate whether their position was representative of those of the other biology faculty members at their college. In many cases, only one questionnaire was returned per college, and the respondent indicated that her/his position was representative of the other faculty members. Thus some faculty members may have been allowing others to respond for them. Abbreviated questions with a summary of responses follow. For complete questions and a more detailed description of college responses in the "other" categories see the full questionnaire in the appendix.

Question 1 comments. Percentage of various views. Comparison of views of college and high school biology teachers. Responses were classified as follows: "a(1)" as atheistic or deistic, "a(2)" and "a(3)" as deistic, "a(4)" as a theistic evolutionary choice that deals with chance in such a way that the view is clearly not deistic, and "b" (1 through 5) as discontinuous theistic models. Responses "a(1)," "a(2)," and "a(3)" express the currently prevalent view among scientists except that the Creator would not be mentioned. Based on this classification about 9% of the total number of questionnaires returned from the colleges showed a preference for a deistic evolutionary view, about 20% for a theistic evolutionary view, and about 56% for some form of more abrupt or discontinuous creation of basic types of organisms. The remaining 15% seemed ambivalent between theistic evolution and a more abrupt creation model. Corresponding figures for the high school teachers were 2% deistic evolution, 11% theistic evolution, 67% some form of more abrupt creation of basic types, and 20% ambivalent between theistic evolution and a more abrupt model.

A chi square test for independence analysis of the proportion believing in evolution vs. more abrupt creation in college and high school respondents indicated the high school teachers were more likely than the college teachers to prefer a more abrupt or discontinuous creation (significant at the 5% level).

Question 3 comments. Consistency of responses. Answer "a" contains a prevalent assumption among nontheistic biologistsóthat matter organizes itself. Answer "b" is another expression of a prevalent nontheistic viewpoint. All college respondents who chose "3.a" or "3.b" (13 people) picked responses "1.a"(1 through 4) except one who picked "1.b(1)" and said the created groups were phyla rather than families and higher. Response "3.a" could be classified as deistic evolution and "3.b" as deistic or atheistic. Of the college teachers, 15% chose one or the other of these two responses. None of the high school teachers chose "3.a" or "3.b."

Question 4 comments. Intention of Genesis 1 and 2, comparison of views of college and high school biology teachers. A chi square test for independence was used to compare the number of respondents from colleges vs. high schools who indicated that the early chapters of Genesis were intended to tell how God brought about creation vs. those who indicated the chapters were not so intended. This test showed that the college teachers were less likely than the high school teachers to believe the chapters were so intended (significant at the 1% level).

Question 5 comments. Consistency of responses. All of the three college respondents who chose "5.a," a deistic view, also selected "3.b" and "1.a"(1,2, or 4). None of the high school teachers chose "5.a." Response "5.c" is a common theistic evolution view.

Question 6 comments. Connection between respondent's view of the inspiration of Scripture and other responses. Most of the college respondents who chose "6.a" or "6.b" selected "4.b" or "4.d" and "1.a(4)." Two of them chose "1.a(2);" one, "1.b(1);" one, "1.b(5);" one, "1.c;" and three, a combination of "1.b(1)" and one of the choices from "1.a." Four of the seven high school respondents who chose "6.a" or "6.b" selected "4.b" or "4.d," and three preferred "4.e." Their responses to Question 1 were divided among "1.a(4)," "1.b(1)," and "1.b(5)."

Question 7. Number of years of teaching. College faculty members were divided into two groups, those who have had 22 or more years of experience and those who have had less than 22 years experience, giving equal sized groups. Comparison of the two groups showed that the faculty members with fewer years experience seemed no more or less likely than the more experienced ones to favor deistic views. Dividing high school respondents into those who have had 11 or more years of experience and those who have had 10 years or less gave two groups of about equal size. Comparison of these two groups showed no difference in their tendency to favor a deistic view.

According to the response to this survey, there is substantial support for some sort of theistic model over a deistic one. Next we will identify critical ways in which a theistic model differs from a deistic or atheistic one.

Some Differences between a Theistic View and the Accepted (Atheistic) View or a Deistic View

One critical distinction between a theistic view and the currently accepted model or a deistic one is whether or not change can be attributed to pure chance. Another is whether change is due to molecules having been made with a built-in tendency to become more complex (allowing for divine control only in the original design of the molecules).

Abraham Kuyper spoke of "º a cosmos which does not fall a prey to the freaks of chance, but exists and developsº according to a firm order aiming at one fixed plan" (Kuyper, 115). An alternative view expressed in a paper presented at the 1990 American Scientific Affiliation (ASA) Annual Meeting (Adams) proposed evolution via a type of chance which is controlled by the Creator, which Donald MacKay calls "scientific chance"ówhere there is no human knowledge of a causal connection between events (MacKay 1974, 48).These two views have been expressed as the clockwork determinacy of classical physics vs. the new chance statistical determinacy of modern physics. The concept of a universe developing according to a fixed order has been criticized as being somewhat deistic in that the Creator could set up the processes in the beginning and then allow them to run on their own, perhaps intervening at key events. However, the other view, that of origin by chance, seems closer to the prevalent view of evolution based on pure chance and presumed self-organizing properties of molecules, which is at best deistic and, in the minds of most of its proponents, totally without divine participation. It is, therefore, appropriate for us to examine some views of origin by chance. The currently accepted view should be a matter of concern for Christians because it has been used as a basis for the idea of a universe without God (evolutionism). The following quotes are examples. "The cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be" (Sagan, 4), "º except for purely mechanistic ones, no organizing or purposive principles exist in the world. There are no gods and no designing forces" (Provine, 506), and from Nobel laureate Jacques Monod speaking of mutations:

We call these events accidental; we say that they are random occurrences. And since they constitute the only possible source of modifications in the genetic text itself the sole repository of the organism's hereditary structures, it necessarily follows that chance alone is at the source of every innovation, of all creation in the biosphere. Pure chance, absolutely free but blind, at the very root of the stupendous edifice of evolution: this central concept of modern biology is no longer one among other possible or even conceivable hypotheses. It is today the sole conceivable hypothesis, the only one that squares with observed and tested fact (Monod, 112-113).

Moreover Monod said, "Man at last knows that he is alone in the universe's unfeeling immensity out of which he emerged only by chance" (Monod, 180). According to Monod, randomness in a process rules out the possibility of purpose (Bartholomew, 75).

According to the response to this survey, there is substantial support
for some sort of theistic model over a deistic one.

An additional reason for concern about the currently accepted evolutionary view is the major effect it has had on modern thought. Nontheistic evolution has had an impact on every discipline (including theology, as expressed in the idea of Darwin and others that every immoral act, rather than being a sin, is merely a lapse into the animal behavior of our ancestors). Therefore it is important to determine whether or not there is sufficient basis for challenging the current nontheistic consensus on evolutionary origin.

The currently accepted view [of origin by chance] should be a
matter of concern for Christians because it has been used as a basis
for the idea of a universe without God (evolutionism).

A theistic evolutionary view, incorporating what appears to be chance (MacKay's scientific chance), can be expressed as in question 1.a(4) of the questionnaire (see appendix), that is, evolution from an original cell with divine control as the Creator operated through scientific chance so that what may seem to be chance to the human observer is not chance from God's perspective. Donald MacKay said, "The things that appear random to us in our ignorance are part of a vast plan in the mind of God in which every minutest detail has been (or is being) worked out by God" (Bartholomew, 24). According to MacKay, "events which are called `random' or `chance' are no less dependent on the creative word of the Authorº than any other. If those events don't happen unless the Creator gives them their being, then He is sovereign over them" (MacKay 1991, 229).

William Pollard wrote, "For only in a world in which the laws of nature govern events in accordance with the casting of dice can the Biblical view of a world whose history is responsive to God's will prevail" (Pollard, 97). "The typical situation in science is one in which several alternatives are open in each natural process" (Pollard, 67). One of these possibilities is then selected `by chance.' It is God who actually decides which choice is to be made (Bartholomew, 32). Another option, presented by Rust, is

Either he determines the outcome of each elementary event individually, or he manages them collectivelyº not caring about individual events as such.º In any case, science has no way of finding out what causes individual elementary events. The claim that there is `nothing but chance' behind mutations is non-scientific (Rust, 88-89).

Some biblical passages have been cited as support for the view that God uses chance to accomplish his purpose. These passages include II Chron. 18:33, where an archer drew a bow at random and struck the king of Israel between the joints of his armor; Jonah 1:7, where Jonah is identified as the one responsible for the storm by drawing of lots; Prov. 16:33, "The lot is cast into the lap but its every decision is from the Lord;" and Acts 1:26, where lots were cast to choose Judas's successor.

Bartholomew gave an example in which a situation that looks random and chaotic is a combination of events which are not themselves random. In an area served by a single telephone exchange,

all of the subscribers put calls through the exchange at precisely regular intervals but the intervals vary from one subscriber to anotherº the arrival of calls at the exchange is thus a deterministic process but, viewing the process at the exchange over relatively short intervals, the flow of calls would appear random (Bartholomew, 71).

But Bartholomew argued that this view denies that chance is real (Bartholomew, 111).

God is just as much in control of events happening by "natural law" as of those due to "miracles."

According to Howard Van Till "There isº no natural process that falls outside of the Creator's domain of action. What we call a natural process is not something that stands outside of his control; it is, rather, a display of his governance, a manifestation of his sovereignty." If we say "that Creation requires divine action but natural processes do not, then we have slipped into the pit of deism"(Van Till 1986, 223-224). According to Van Till, "This emphasis on the primacy of divine action should not, however, be interpreted as implying that God deterministically causes every event that occurs in his Creation. This Creation is no mere puppet, and its Creator is not some sort of divine puppeteerº "(Van Till 1986, 265). Moreover, Van Till has said that the Creation has "functional integrity" and is not controlled by a God who comes down to its level to create by fiat. "Does the created world have deficiencies that require God's intervention?" (Van Till 1990). That deism is not implied by functional integrity is expressed by the following statement:

Although we must acknowledge that our development of the doctrine of Creation's functional integrity has emphasized the absence of gaps in the developmental economy of the created world, we must also note that the concept of Creation's gapless economy does not in any way entail the requirement that the creation is either independent of God or closed to interaction with him. Functional integrity is not equivalent to absolute autonomy. To recognize the functional integrity of the Creation does not entail reducing the Creator either to the remote God of deism or to the unnecessary God of atheism (Van Till 1993, 393).

Pure Chance

Bartholomew argued that God used pure chance "to ensure the variety, resilience and freedom necessary to achieve his purposes"(Bartholomew, 14). He offered a common objection to the idea of a god who controls everything in the universe. The objection relates to the problem of suffering in a world made by an omnipotent, loving god. If God is loving and not responsible for suffering, then, as the reasoning goes, he doesn't control everything and he probably didn't control creation. "Earthquake and famine and all manner of natural disasters are difficult to reconcile with one who cares for each individual and wills only their good. The force of this criticism is weakened somewhat if it is not necessary to see every single occurrence as the deliberate act of God" (Bartholomew, 100).

The world view we have adopted allows us to maintain at one and the same time that God determines the end and the lawfulness of the macrouniverse and that there is indeterminism on the micro-scale. We do not then have to attribute the ravages of a bacterium or the eruption of a volcano to his deliberate purpose. At the risk of labouring the obvious, we repeat that the problem of evil would be almost insuperable in a deterministic world since then God would be directly responsible for everything, though even then it might be possible to argue that there was no better way. Our view, however, allows a genuinely creative role to man as the fellow-labourer and fellow-sufferer with God (Bartholomew, 157).

 Problems with Divine Control by Pure Chance

When one applies Bartholomew's ideas of a God of pure chance consistently (which Bartholomew does), some serious theological problems develop. Is such a world "sufficiently under control to do justice to God's omnipotence?º If there is an element of unpredictability it has to be allowed that things may not turn out as God intendedº "(Bartholomew, 100). Bartholomew argues that though the case for a purposeful God would be weakened if he could have contemplated creating a vast universe which might have failed to produce life, God could nevertheless try the experiment sufficiently often to succeed. Additional problems with a God of chance are seen in the following quote.

Even allowing that creation was certain to produce life in due course there were still risks to be faced. Suppose a giant meteorite had collided with the earth and wiped out God's handiwork in a moment? Or if, within the span of evolutionary history, biochemical events had taken a different course at some critical juncture. Supposeº that Jesus had contracted a fatal attack of smallpox in his teens.º If the view of creation that we have been advocating is anywhere near correct, all of these, and many other, possibilities are real and potentially crippling for the divine plan (Bartholomew, 101).

Attempting to incorporate pure chance into a creation model (as Bartholomew has done in the above examples) is incompatible with Christian theology. A God who is not fully omnipotent and omniscient and who leaves creation to chance is not the God presented in the Scriptures (Mt. 10:29; Acts 15:18; Eph. 1:11, 3:11; Heb. 6:17). Pollard attempts, perhaps with questionable success, to resolve the problem of chance on the one hand vs. destiny, grace, and purpose on the other, by saying, "Thus although we seem to be unable to discover any rational way in which both of these realities could possibly be true at the same time, we must nevertheless affirm them both together" (Pollard, 123).

A Theistic View

At the very least, the distinction should be clearly made that the variation leading to evolutionary change was not by pure chance, nor by inherent properties of autonomous molecules. Variation, if by chance, was brought about by a type of chance (scientific chance) which permits control by the Creator. Since the evidence for monophyletic macroevolution is not conclusiveófor example, gaps in the fossil record and protein structure data (Denton, 157-198, 274-307)ósome sort of creation model, such as progressive creationism, is a viable option. The protein structure data show, among other things, that the magnitude of difference in hemoglobin between jawless fish and fish with jaws is as great as it is between jawless fish and mammals. For the data to support the proposed evolutionary sequence of jawless fish to fish with jaws to amphibians to reptiles to mammals, the longer evolutionary sequence between jawless fish and mammal (compared with jawless fish to fish with jaws) ought to be accompanied by greater difference in protein structures.

One possible view (the progressive creationism view) might be that God created certain basic types and then superintended limited development and diversification of those types, all by some process other than pure chance. This need not be rejected on the basis of the "God of the gaps" problem nor by the argument that progressive creationism is deism (based on the assumption that God does not control the natural process occurring between creation events). God is just as much in control of events happening by "natural law" as of those due to "miracles." Many of those who raise the "God of the gaps" problem believe in a God-controlled evolutionary process. If evidence should accumulate to convincingly support gradual development of all groups of species, the progressive creationism model could be adapted entirely to the type of control occurring between the creation events (or the type postulated in a theistic evolution view). Thus, if theistic evolution is not subject to the charge of deism then neither is progressive creationism. Plantinga points out that "God of the gaps" thought is essentially an apologetic enterprise and therefore not relevant to this situation. One who takes part in this thinking

argues for the existence of God by pointing to phenomena science can't currently explain, suggesting that the only explanation is to be found in the activity of a divine being. From a theistic perspective, of course, this leaves a great deal to be desired.º [T]his procedure suggests that God is a gap plugger, that his activity in the natural world is limited to plugging gaps in a few areas of the natural world while in the rest of nature everything goes on entirely independent of him and his activity. But the theist does not, of course, think of God as a mere gap plugger; God is crucially active in every transaction in nature, from the smallest most insignificant event to the largest cataclysmic event.º [T]heists have agreed that in any natural transaction, God conserves the transactors in existence; were he to withdraw this conserving activity the created universe would vanish like a computer image when you pull the plug (Plantinga, 86-87).

Rust addressed the "God of the gaps" problem as follows:

God's activity is not restricted to events not explainable by scienceº God is continually active in his created universe. His being the Creator cannot easily be separated from his being the Sustainer. Anything happening according to "natural law" is just as much God's doing as those of his "miracles" lacking ordinary causation (Rust, 89).

Conclusion

Though a complementarian approach to creation may be desirable and is preferred by a majority of those responding to the questionnaire (question 2), a strict separation of the theological and scientific realms has not been maintained by proponents of the accepted atheistic evolutionary model. There are components of the accepted model which encroach into the theological realm and conflict with the view of a creator who controls the process. If natural causes are extended into areas where they cannot be confirmed, i.e., the question of whether God has controlled the process of creation, complementarism has been violated. Theists should then be at liberty to challenge that encroachment. The view that evolution occurred by pure chance denies any role for a creator. It is not consistent with a theistic view but with an atheistic model or, at best, a deistic one (if God constructed that type of system in the beginning). The view that molecules organize themselves (have built-in properties causing them to become more complex) is likewise consistent with an atheistic view (or a deistic one, if God constructed that type of system in the beginning). If distinctions such as these are not made (if the accepted view is adopted as God's method of creation), students might see no reason to question inferences they constantly encounter that the current evolutionary model eliminates the need for a creator. They could drift into deism and then be vulnerable to evolutionism. A transformationist strategy is needed here.

©1995

References

Adams, Paul, "Chance within Design" Paper presented at the 1990 American Scientific Affiliation Annual Meeting.

Bartholomew, David J., God of Chance (London: SCM Press Ltd., 1984).

Denton, Michael, Evolution: a Theory in Crisis. (Bethesda MD: Adler & Adler, 1986).

Hasker, William (1992) "Faith Learning Integration: an Overview" Christian Scholar's Review 21:234-48.

Kuyper, Abraham, Lectures on Calvinism (Grand Rapids: Wm B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1931).

MacKay, Donald, The Clock Work Image (Downer's Grove: IV Press, 1974).

MacKay, Donald, Behind the Eye (Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwill Ltd., 1991).

Monod, Jacques, Chance and Necessity (NY: Vintage Books, 1972).

Plantinga, Alvin, "Evolution, Neutrality and Antecedent Probability: A Reply to McMullin and VanTill" Christian Scholar's Review 21:80-109, 1991.<P7MJ247>

Pollard, William B., Chance and Providence (NY: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1958).

Provine, William B., "Influence of Darwin's Ideas on the Study of Evolution." Bioscience. 32:501-506, 1982.

Rust, Peter, "How Has Life and Its Diversity Been Produced?" Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith. 44:80-94, 1992.

Sagan, Carl, Cosmos (NY: Random House, 1980).

VanTill, Howard J., The Fourth Day (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1986).

VanTill, Howard J., Remarks following paper given at the 1990 ASA Annual Meeting.

VanTill, Howard J., "Is Special Creationism a Heresy?" Christian Scholar's Review 22:380-395, 1993.

Appendix

Numbers of responses for each option, together with %, are given in brackets [ ] after each option in the questionnaire. The total number of college questionnaires returned was 73.