Science in Christian Perspective
By a Molecular Biologist
A Critical Evaluation of Evolution
PATTLE P. T. PUN
Department of Biology
Wheaton College Wheaton, Illinois 60187
From: JASA 29 (June 1977): 84-91.
How Much Emphasis Should One Put on Scientific Data?
Ever since the publication of the "Origin of Species" by
Charles Darwin
in 1859, a storm of controversy has been raging among theologians and
scientists.
Some proponents of Darwin's theory have elevated it to such an extent that they
have established a new paradigm with which human experience is to be
re-interpreted.
Others have identified the theory of evolution as the work of the devil without
any scientific merit and have committed themselves to fight against the theory as if it is to
fight against
the devil himself. Richard Rube summarized the controversy in this
way: "If
the evolutionists usually puts too much emphasis on these (empirical) data, the
antievolutionists usually puts too little".' The question
remains: How much
emphasis should one put on the scientific data related to the theory
of evolution?
This paper attempts to analyze these data, delineate the strengths
and weaknesses
of the theory of evolution and to present a possible Christian interpretation to aid in resolving some of the
controversy.
The abiogenesis of a cell with its highest controversy, level of complexity as a self-reproducing unit is extremely improbable.
Criteria for Evaluating the Theory of Evolution.
If the theory of evolution is
to be established as a close approximation of reality, it is fair
that it should
be evaluated epistemologically. While there is a wealth of
epistemological theories
explaining the nature of truth, the following two criteria similar to
those enunciated
by Arthur Holmes2 seem to be very useful in approaching this problem.
Empirical
adequacy: The concept under question should be amenable to empirical
verification.
Rational coherency: The concept under question should he consistent with other
concepts which were arrived at rationally.
We shall attempt to
analyze the theory
of evolution accordingly.
Evaluation of the Theory of Evolution.
The antiquity
of evolutionary thought and Darwin's contribution.
The Darwinian
theory of evolutionary
change and struggle for existence can be traced all the way back to the Greek
philosopher Heraclitus (540-475 B.C.) who is noted for his concept of
a continual,
universal process of flux, having two sides, generation and decay. He
also postulated
that individual things endeavor to maintain themselves in permanence
against the
universal process of destruction and renovation. The immediate
precursors of Charles
Darwin include George de Buff on (1707-1788 AD.) who believed in a
change in form
from one animal type to another. Erasmus Darwin (1731-1802 AD.), the
grandfather
of Charles Darwin, first alluded to the term "evolution" to designate
the process which involved "the power of acquiring new parts,
attended with
new propensities, directed by irritations, sensations, volitions and
associations
and thus possessing the faculty of continuing to improve by its own
inherent activity
and of delivering these improvements by generation down to its posterity world
without end".3 Darwin's contemporaries, Chevalier de Lamarck
(1744-1829 A.D.),
E. Geoffrey Saint-Hilaire (1772-1844 AD.), Herbert Spencer (1820-1903
A.D.), among
others, all contributed in one way or the other some form of the
theory of evolution.
But it was not until 1858 that Charles Darwin (1809-1882 A.D.) and
Alfred R. Wallace
(1823-1913 AD.) successfully attracted the attention of the
scientific community
by presenting their theory to the Linnaean Society. Upon the publication of The
Origin of Species in 1859, the public was first exposed to Darwin's
idea of evolution,
Darwin's success in getting across his idea to the scientific community hinges
on his conception of "Natural Selection", the survival of
the fittest,
which provided a mechanism to account for the process of evolution.
It is appropriate
at this time, then, to examine the evidence which Darwin used in
formulating his
theory. Evidence Darwin used. 1. Empirical evidence: data collected
by observation
and experience.
(a) Domestication of plants and animals.
Ever since the dawn of civilization man has been exploiting wild
animals and plants
by cultivation and domestication. Cultivated plants or domesticated
animals have
a greater degree of diversity than their counterparts in nature. They
have varied
due to artificial selection of particular traits and according to the
conditions
under which they have been raised. Darwin concluded that there are two factors
controlling the variations of animals and plants under domestication: namely,
the nature of the organism and the nature of the conditions,4 which
are presumably
analogous to the situation in nature.
(b) Variation of organisms in nature.
In 1831, Darwin sailed as a naturalist on the H.M.S: Beagle from
England to South
America as part of a survey of continental coastlines. He visited the various
isolated oceanic islands off the coast of Ecuador. On several of the Galapagos
Islands Darwin found several species and varieties of finches which had beaks
with various sizes and shapes. They were presumably the descendants
of a species
of finch in the mainland, which was 600 miles away. Darwin suggested that all
these varieties of birds were descended from an ancestral species introduced to
the island. After the offspring of this ancestral species had become
too numerous
they outstripped the food supply. By a process of natural selection,
the variant
individuals with better equipped beaks were able to survive in distinct parts
of the island according to the variable type of food available. Over the course
of time different variant forms would occupy distinct niches in the environment.7
2. Circumstantial evidence: evidence which is proposed as factual
based on reasonable
inferences from other accepted facts (e.g.,-empirical facts).
(a) Paleontological collections.
There are 4 main geological periods of earth history classified
according to their
relative antiquity, namely, Proterozoic (Pre-Cambrian), Paleozoic, Mesozoic and
Cenozoic in chronological order with the Proterozoie era dated by
several methods
back to more than 3.6 billion years ago. There were fossils of
single-celled bacteria
and algae found in the Precambrian period. However, multicellular forms of life
were scarcely represented in the fossil record until the Cambrian period, the
oldest of the Paleozoic era. Throughout the remaining geological strata, there
was a noted absence of intermediate varieties between major groups of
fossilized
organisms in any given formation.5 Recent paleontological collections represent
more varieties but whether they have bridged the gaps between major groups of
organisms is disputable.8 One of the often cited
"transitional" fossils
unearthed having the characteristics of both birds and reptiles was
Archaeopteryx,
which in addition to the bird-like features of wings and feathers
also has reptile-like characteristics, namely, claw-like appendanges on the edges of the wings, the
possession of teeth, and vertebrae extending out along the tail. However, its
advanced features of the bird and primitive features of the reptile led some to
conclude that Archaeopteryx was a true bird which can he partly represented by
modern day species of birds found in Africa and South America.9 All in all, the
interpretation of paleontological record is disputable and it can at
most he used
as circumstantial evidence for Darwin's theory.
(b) Comparative structures and functions.
The similarities in morphology, structures and functions among living organisms
prompted Darwin to postulate that these similarities were evidence of descent
from a common ancester. Recent evidences in physiology, biochemical metabolism,
genetics and molecular biology also indicate that there are great similarities
among living organisms. However, these evidences do not support the theory of
evolution exclusively. A theory of common design by a Designer is
equally supported
by these evidences. Darwin regarded some structures found in man and in higher
forms of life as the remains of organs which were once required by
their ancestral
forms but which are no longer essential to the organism.6 However, this concept
has been questioned in light of recent findings. For example, the appendix in
mammals which was thought to be rudimentary has been found to be rich
in lymphoid tissue,14 and is responsible for the replenishment of part of the immune system
after irradiation,15
Mechanisms of evolutionary change.
In order for an organism to survive under natural selection it has to adapt to
the new set of conditions, and also pass on its capacity to survive
to its offspring.
In Darwin's time, little was publicly known about the science of
genetics although
Mendel's original work was published in 1865. Lamarek had postulated
in genetics
that organisms adapt to their environment by acquiring certain new
characteristics
which are in turn passed on to their offspring. After the dawn of the science
of genetics at the turn of this century, a theory originally proposed by Gregor
Mendel (18221884) and elaborated by Hugo de Vries (1848-1935) stated
that intrinsic
genetic characteristics diversified by the process of mutation and
recombination.
These changes gave rise to the source of varieties. Later on, the
ideas of Mendel
and de Vries were coupled with the concept of Natural Selection and additional
components of evolutionary theory to become the dominant view of the
Neo-Darwinian
version of evolution with the Lamarekian view largely repudiated.
Status of the modern theory of evolution: Neo-Darwinism.
1, Definition of a species.
In order to examine the modern development of Darwinism, it is
paramount to establish
a working definition of the term "species" upon which much of of the
theory of evolution is based.
The first systematic attempt to classify living organisms was made by John Ray
(1628-1705) and Carolus Linnaeus (1707-1778). Linnaeus adopted the principles
of Ray using as criteria the morphological conformity and the potentiality of forming a fertile progeny to
categorize the members
of the smallest unit of taxonomy as species. Linnaeus adhered to the concept of
"fixity of species" which denotes that there existed at
that time just
as many species as God created in the beginning. His ideas were later
challenged
by Buffon and Lamarck who set the stage for Darwin's The Origin of Species. Today,
although the taxonomic system of Linnaeus is still being used as the basis for
designation of organisms, his classification scheme has been
repeatedly revised.
The generally accepted definition of a contemporary "species" today
is a group of related individuals that are actually or potentially capable of
interbreeding or a group of organisms constituting a single gene pool.
2. Micro- versus macro- evolution.
The theory of evolution in its present form can he divided into two
parts, namely,
microevolution (the special theory 0f evolution) and macroevolution
(the general
theory of evolution or the synthetic theory of evolution)." In
microevolution
new varieties of a species developed from the source of diversification through
mutation (sudden change in the DNA molecule) and genetic recombination (random
assortment of chromosomes as well as crossing over of the chromosomes) by the
process of natural selection. In macroevolution, the theory of microevolution
is extrapolated from inorganic molecules to man to include the chance
development
of higher forms of life from lower forms of life, lower forms of life
from unicellular
organisms, and the cell from inorganic molecules by the process of
natural selection.16
Neo-Darwinism holds the view that the accumulation of point-mutations selected
for by natural selection will not only lead to the development of new
varieties,
but new species in the higher categories." In other words, the
General Theory
is an extensive extrapolation of the Special Theory.
3. The evolving concept of "Natural Selection".
After the triumphant Centennial Celebration of Darwinism in 1959, a
quiet philosophical
debate was going on in the 1960's regarding the logical coherency of Darwin's
concept of "Natural Selection". The arguments focused on the circular
reasoning of Darwin's premise of "The Survival of the
Fittest". Darwin
did not provide any objective criteria to identify the fittest other
than looking
at the survivors.23 The Nobel laureate, geneticist T. H. Morgan first pointed
out this discrepancy and evolutionists have come to realize the
tautological nature
of Darwin's theory of natural selection. However, this recognition
did not greatly
bother them for they had already redefined natural selection to mean
differential
reproduction, a concept which was quite foreign to Darwin.
Strengths and weaknesses of Nco-Darwinism.
1. Strengths: Microevolution.
(a) Empirical adequacy.
The mechanism for the Special Theory of evolution can be documented
empirically.
Mutants can easily be isolated from a culture of bacteria by using a selective
growth medium." The actual continuous process of microevolution has also
been observed using an apparatus called a chemostat which provides the growing
bacterial culture with a steady supply of nutrients and constantly washes away
excessive growth and metabolic by-products to maintain a well-balanced density.
Spontaneous mutants (mutants generated spontaneously in the absence of external
mutagens) which grow faster under the conditions prevailing in the
chemostat overtake
the parent bacterial culture entirely in just a few generations.12
Domestication of animals and plants has continually been practiced
since Darwin's
time and the varieties of cultivated plants and animals have been exploited for
human use. Varieties of a species (sometimes called races or
subspecies) can also
be observed in different natural environments. In the ease of
industrial melanism,
different colored varieties of peppered moths were selected for in
the industrial
area of Manchester, England, according to their capacity to adapt to the color
of their natural habitat. The bark of the tree trunk was darkened by
air pollution
from the industries, and the darker varieties thus escape their predators.25 Both
of these incidences are examples of microevolution.
(b) Rational coherency.
It seems logical to interpret the many subspecies or sibling species of a given
species of organism as descendents from a given prototype by the
process of microevolution.
The many sibling or sub-species of the fruit fly Drosophila may well
have evolved
from the same ancestral species of fruit fly by microevolution and geographic
and ecological isolation. The criteria for differentiating species (sibling or
sub) from varieties in this case may be subtle. If two members of
Drosophila will
not produce fertile offspring with each other, they will normally be classified
as two separate species. However the factors involved in reproductive isolating
barriers have to be considered, These are post mating harriers (mechanisms that
prevent gene exchange only after mating has occurred) and premating
barriers (seasonal,
habitat isolation, behaviorial differences, among others, which
prevent the mating
of two individuals)." Varieties developed from the same species
may be grouped
into sibling or subspecies if they are prevented from producing
fertile offspring
by the above mentioned conditions.
2. Weaknesses: macroevolutioo or the synthetic theory of evolution. Despite the
systematic unity of the synthetic theory of evolution in its
comprehensive scope,
there are serious weaknesses inherent in this theory.
(a) Empirical inadequacy.
(i) The demise of the theory of spontaneous generation.
The theory of spontaneous generation which states that life arose continually
from the nonliving was very popular in the medieval and enlightenment periods
because of its apparent consistency with one's sense experience:
worms arise from
mud, maggots from decaying meat, mice from refuse of various kind.
The establishment
of this theory was paramount to the synthetic theory of evolution to
explain the
evolutionary development of life from the nonliving. However, through a series
of ingenious experiments performed by Francesco Redi, Laxxaro Spallaozani and
finally Louis Pasteur in the 19th Century, it was shown that life arises always
from preexisting life.17 Evolutionists who want to reject the
The Naturalistic extrapolation of the theory of evolution into various areas of human experience has led to frustration, confusion and despair.
notion of a single primary act of creation are left with no choice. They have
to approach the origin of life again through a hypothesis of
spontaneous generation
by assuming that organisms may have arisen spontaneously under
different conditions
in some former period, granted that they do so no longer.18 Empirical
documentation
of this hypothesis using experimentation under the present condition would be
quite difficult.21
(ii) The difficulties involved in accounting for the abiogenesis of the first
cell.
In the search for the origin of life, some progress has been made in
the synthesis
of amino acids, 19 nucleic acid constituents,20 protenoid
mierospheres and coacervate
droplets" under simulated primordial conditions. However, there
still remain
many difficult problems to be resolved. First of all, polymerization
of chemicals
monomers under simillated primordial conditions contains no more than
"information"
input defined by physical and chemical parameters. It does not start new life
processes as self reproducing systems. It is analogous to the self assembling
process of a computer which operates only insofar as the
informational input dictates.
Secondly, it will be difficult to account for the switch to internal
control which
is a characteristic of the cell when the polymerization process of
chemical monomers
triggered by external forces finally brings about a truly self
reproducing system.
Thirdly, the probability of achieving complexity from simple starting materials
will be decreased drastically (geometrically) as the systems become
more and more
complex. This will lead to the conclusion that the abiogenesis of a cell with
its highest level of complexity as a selfreproducing unit is
extremely improbable.21
(iii) Evolution above the species level is poorly documented empirically.
Evolution above the species level has to rest quite heavily on the concept of
speciation (the formation of new species). Although rational explanation can be
formulated to account for the diversification of species by microevolution in
nature, it is yet to be observed in a controlled laboratory setting
that speciation
occurs readily. One of the rare cases of speciation observed
empirically was the
speciation in wheat in which the hybridization of two strains of wheat produces
a fertile offspring strain which is incapable of interbreeding with its parent
strain.50 However, the mechanism in which this process of
speciation occurs,
namely, polyploidy, is commonly observed only in plants and cannot be used to
account for the overall mechanism of macroevolution in all living
organisms. The
chemostat experiment mentioned earlier can allow the observation of
numerous generations
of bacterial evolution in a relatively short period of time. However,
only varieties
within a species but not new species have been detected.12 Empirical
documentation
of evolution above
the species level is not yet forthcoming. It can be argued that since
macroevolution
happened over a long period of time, it cannot be observed empirically in one's
lifetime. Nonetheless, the theory of macroevolution would be without
a firm empirical
foundation if it were divorced from the empirical documentation of the theory
of microevolution. It will be seen in the following section that the mechanism
operative in microevolution is insufficient to account for macroevolution.
(iv) The inconsistency of molecular biological data with other data supporting
macroevolution.
The advent of molecular biology in the last two decades has made biology a more
exact science. With the elucidation of the structure of a gene (DNA)
and the correlation
of biological activities with physical and chemical processes, a quantitative
examination of different living organisms is made possible by comparing their
genetic constitutions. Through the technologies of protein sequencing
and nucleic
acid hybridization, it is possible to calculate the genetic distance
between different
species of organisms by comparing their degree of protein sequence similarities
and DNA homologies. Recently, a surprising observation concerning
genetic relatedness
of man and chimpanzee has been made.22 After comparing the sequences
of more than
40 proteins from chimpanzee and man and their DNA homologies by hybridization,
it was concluded that the genetic distances among species from different genera
are considerably larger than the humanchimpanzee genetic distance. In
other words,
the anatomically and behaviorally distinct species of human and chimpanzee are
found, according to these data, to be more closely related genetically to each
other than are several sibling species or congeneric species of frog, fruit fly
or mouse. These findings are inconsistent with the general scheme of
macroevolution
which predicts that human and chimpanzee after their evolutionary
divergence should
differ genetically to a greater extent than what was inferred from the protein
and nucleic acid evidence.
(b) Rational incoherency.
(i) "Chance" has been used as the teleological explanation
of evolution.
It had been criticized in Darwin's day that in order to deny purposes
in nature,
Darwininn substituted "chance and accidents" to account for
the necessity
for evolution while maintaining that the evolutionary process is not
teleological.24
Evolutionists, while stressing the material and efficient causes of evolution,
have yet to come up with a valid counterargument to explain why
chance alone can
he in such marvelous harmony to produce the orderly array in the
biosphere instead
of causing disruption of the whole structure, since both of these
phenomena would
be called for in equal probability, a condition implicit in the use of the term
"chance".
(ii) The insufficiency of the concept of "Natural
Selection" to account
for macroevolution.
Evolution above the species level has not been satisfactorily accounted for by
the mechanism of "Natural Selection". To quote from a
leading contemporary
evolutionist, Dr. Jay M. Savage, "The essential features of mieroevolution and speciation are now fairly
well understood
by biologists but the
plex processes leading to the grander scale remain an area inviting
investigation".25
Various concepts have been postulated to try to account for the mechanisms of
macroevolution.
(1) The "Systemic mutation" concept.
The late Richard B. Goldschmidt, geneticist at the University of
California, has
expressed frustration in trying to account for the macroevolutionary
development
of many structures in higher organisms on the bases of the mechanisms
of microevolution
alone. He challenged his fellow evolutionists to work out a
step-by-step evolution
scheme for 18 structures in higher organisms, among them hair in
mammals and feathers
in birds. His challenge was unanswered. Therefore, he postulated a
novel concept
of "Systemic Mutation" which involves changes of
intrachromosomal pattern.26
27 This view was not popular because the concept of "Systemic
Mutation"
did not find any support in an experimental model. However, the insufficiency
of "Natural Selection" as it works in microevolution to account for
macroevolution was first brought into attention.
(2) The "Neutral Mutation" concept.
Upon the advent of the molecular biological methodologies to compare
the genetic
relatedness of different species it was apparent that there were
great variabilities
in primary structure (amino acid sequence) of homologous proteins from various
sources.28 Interpretation of the molecular biological evidence and organismal
evidence seemed to lead to the conclusion that the two levels of evolution are
to a large extent independent of each other.22 Based on these observations, the
concept of "Neutral Mutation" was postulated. It denotes that certain
genetic changes are neither beneficial nor detrimental to the organism and that
"Natural Selection" can do nothing to stop these
"neutral mutations"
which spread at a constant rate.28,29 This concept demands additional factors
to explain macroevolution besides natural selection.
(3) The "Species Selection" concept.
In reaction to the arguments of the opponents of macruevolution,
modem evolutionists
tried to reiterate their convictions that the process of natural selection is
responsible for both mieroevolution and macroevolution. However, a
recent article
examined the fossil record and came up with a novel concept of
"Species Selection".30
It was concluded in this article that natural selection while
operating very nicely
in microevolution, fails to account for the major features of
evolution and that
species selection which operates on variation provided by the largely
random process
of speciatiun favors species that speeiate at high rates or survive
for long periods
and therefore tend to leave many daughter species.30
All in all, while the idea of Darwin's evolution is still venerated as the most
comprehensive theory in Biology, the concept of Natural Selection, by which the
theory was first established on scientific ground, is being gradually abandoned
as the only mechanism which can account for the features of macroevolution.
Extrapolation of the Theory of Evolution by Naturalism
Naturalism is a philosophy maintaining the propositions that matter
exists eternally
and is the only reality, that the cosmos exists as a uniformity of
cause and effect
in a closed system, that man is only a complex machine, that death is
extinction
of personality and individuality, that history is a linear stream of
events linked
by cause and effect but without an over arching purpose, and that man
is the central
reference point of ethical views. It was first formulated as a
systematic school
of thought in the eighteenth century and it came of age at Darwin's time.49 Despite
Darwin's upbringing in theistic thought, his later ideas were more or
less influenced
by naturalism.51 Naturalism in turn extrapolates Darwin's theory of
natural selection
into various areas of human experience:
The extrapolation of Darwinism into religion and theology.
Upon the advent of Darwinism, religion has been treated by the naturalists as
man's evolving concepts of a felt practical relationship with what is believed
in as a supernatural being or beings, in the eternal quest for the meaning of
life and death, starting from primitive tribal ritualism and animism
and culminating
in monotheism in Christianity.31 The Bible is viewed as a product of man's
progressive understanding of God, a viewpoint which contributed to
the development
of higher criticism and the repudiation of the verbal inspiration of
the Bible.32
Prominent Catholic and Protestant theologians embraced evolution and espoused
a modernistic social gospel.33,34 ' Christ was viewed as a great
teacher providing
an example for ethical living. The mission of the church was to alleviate human
suffering in direct harmony with the inevitable progress fostered by evolution.
Concern with the life to come was largely repudiated.
Social Darwinian.
Darwin's contemporary, Herbert Spencer, was the first person to link the idea
of social evolution to Darwin's idea of organic evolution. The theory
of survival
of the fittest "became a vogue that swept Western thought in the late 19th
century. It also became a convenient doctrine for justifying various economic
and political theories".35 Unscrupulous industrialists took advantage of
Darwin's theory to condone their unethical practices. Some
militarist, justified
their aggression by the principle of the survival of the fittest.36 Communists
based their thesis of class struggle in history partly on Darwin's
natural selection.37
The extrapolation of Darwinism into philosophy and education.
Pragmatism, an evolutionistic philosophy developed in America, states that the
mind is not separate from the total organism but a part of it and thus subject
to development and change as the organism itself. It has "an emphasis on
the evolution and changing character of reality, on the relevance of knowledge
to practical situations, on the need of testing truth by its ability to 'work',
and on the instrumental nature of ideas".38 The influence of Darwinism and
Pragmatism also extends to education to some degree in the
I accept the day-age interpretation of the Genesis account because it is exegetically defensible and it is proposed by numerous evangelical theologians. It also provides for the antiquity of the earth.
naturalistic philosophy of progressivism and reconstructionism.39
The extrapolation of Darwinism into psychology and history.
Various influential psychologists like C. H. Judd, C. S. Hall, J. Dewey and S.
Freud,40 all held to the evolutionary interpretation of man's origin
and developed
their psychological theories accordingly. The behavioristic approach
to psychology
was one of the outcomes of the Darwinist influence. The naturalistic
extrapolation
of Darwinian evolution has also given birth to an optimistic view of
the meaning
of history. This particular philosophy of history resulted in the adoption of
the ideology that progress is inevitable even though individuals or
pressure groups
may follow their own selfish purposes for the realization of special
privileges.41
The Naturalistic extrapolation of the theory of evolution into various areas of
human experience has led to frustration, confusion and despair. Man
is awakening
to the necesssity of the reevaluation of his own nature in a more
holistic context.
Attempts to Integrate Christian Faith and The Biological Theory of
Evolution
As a Christian who is a molecular biologist, I accept the validity of
Cod's general
revelation through nature which is the realm of scientific
investigation, as well
as Cod's special revelation through the Bible which is the realm of theological
interpretation. Both of these avenue, of Cod', revelation should lead us into
a consistent although incomplete understanding of the creation and the Creator.
The scientific enterprise, despite its theory-laden nature, has the
methodological
element which enables man to perceive Cod's general revelation
regardless of the
scientists' presuppositions. The apparent conflicts which have arisen between
science and the Bible can be attributed either to the
misinterpretation of scientific
data or the Bible. After enumerating the strengths and weaknesses of
the biological
theory of evolution and its naturalistic extrapolation into other fats of human
experience, it is appropriate to evaluate the theory of the evolution in light
of the biblical record of creation. While there are numerous views represented
among evangelicals on this issue I shall delineate a position according to my
present understanding of the biological sciences and of the Bible. I am leaving
open the option that Cod may change my view in the future by giving
me more insight
into the Scripture as well as by the advancement of biological
science and other
areas of learning where evolutionary naturalism has been influential.
Interpretation of Genesis.
I believe in the Scriptures of the Old and the New Testaments as verbally inspired by God and inerrant in the original writing. In
order to actualize this conviction, it behooves me to interpret the
Bible contextually,
historically and literarily. Because of my insufficient preparation
in theology,
I have to rely heavily on other theologians' painstaking studies in the book of
Genesis. The most important question to be asked on the
interpretation of Genesis
1 and 2 is whether it is (1) an allegorical account to convey a
meaning metaphorically
implied but not expressly stated, (2) a descriptive quasi-scientific history or
(3) a literary account of history in some non-descriptive genre. The difficulty
is to treat what was intended to be allegory as allegory and what was intended
to be history as history. I reject the allegorical interpretation of
Genesis because
it is not exegetically sound43 and also because this position places
a tremendous
pressure on the interpretation of the historicity of the Fall and the
trustworthiness
of Christ when He quoted from the Genesis account of man (Mark 10:6).
In addition,
this position has yielded an unnecessary compromise to the atheistic
evolutionist
who maintains that man is a product of chance only. I also reject as unlikely
the naive literal interpretation of the creation day as a 24 hour
solar day, because
it is not necessarily called for in the text. This position also overlooks the
current scientific concept of the antiquity of the earth which was arrived at
by six independent dating methods.42 1 accept the day-age interpretation of the
Genesis account because it is exegetically defensible and it is
proposed by numerous
evangelical theologians.43-45 It also provides room for the antiquity of
the earth. Synthesis
1. God created the prototypes of each "kind" of organism in
six geological
eras and they diversified by the process of mieroevolution to
generate the various
species or sub-species observed today. The Genesis record of "kind"
did not specify its exact biological boundaries and so we should be cautious in
suggesting what these might have been. It is thus reasonable to interpret that
the "kind" may mean the original ancestral form of a certain group of
organisms, e.g., the fruit fly Drosophila, which later on developed
into the present
day varieties. This view is shared by other biologists,46
anthropologists,47 and
orthodox theologiaos.45-48
2. God created all living organisms with a similar blueprint. This will account
for the similarities of the comparative structures and functions
among organisms,
and their similarities in physiology and biochemical metabolism.
3. Man is God's special creation in the sixth and final epoch of the creation
account. He is not derived from pre-existing living forms. His uniqueness lies
in his transcendence of nature despite his earthly origin through his spiritual
capacity to relate to God and his fellow men as a free agent. The documentation
of this view is beyond the scope of this paper.
Conclusion
I have attempted to integrate the issue of evolution in Biology with Christian
faith, Other areas which are to be integrated in my thinking are the relation
of fact to theory, the difference between a religious account and a scientific account of an incidence, the hermeneutic problems of
Genesis, and man's transcendence and/or dependence concerning his biological
makeup. These issues will be pondered and pursued
throughout my academic and ministerial endeavors.
I thank Dr. Raymond Brand, Dr. Joseph Spradley
and Dr. Arthur Holmes for critically reviewing this
article.
REFERENCES
1Bube, B., The Human Quest, Word Books, p. 207, 1971.
2Holmes, A., Professor of Philosophy, Wheaton College. Lecture given
during the
Integration of Faith and Learning seminar held at Wheaton College, July 12 to
August 6, 1976.
3Darwin, E., Vol. I. Zoonomia, Boston, Mass: Thomas & Andrews. Preface. 1803.
4Darwin, C., The Origin of Species, The New American Library,
p. 32. 1958.
5Ibid. p. 298.
61bid. p. 412, 418.
7lbid. P. 371; Darwin, C., The Voyage of the Beagle, New
York: Dutton, 1957.
8Moore, J. N. and Cuffey, B. J., Journal ASA, 24 No. 4 P. 160, 1972.
9Gish, D. T., Evolution, The Fossils Say No! Creation-Life
Publishers, p. 62, 1973.
10Simpson, G. C., The Major Features of Evolution, Columbia
Univ. Press. 1953.
11Pun, P., C. D. Murray and N. Strauss., 1. Bacteriol. 123, P. 346, 1975.
12Novick, A. and L. Szilard, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sc. Wash. 36. P. 717, 1950.
13Kirk, D., ed. Biology Today, CRM, Random House, 2nd ed.
p. 708, 1975.
14Archer, 0. K., Nature. p. 338, Oct. 26, 1963.
15Jaroslow, B. N., Immunologist, Argonne National Laboratory, Lecture given in
an Immunology class, Spring, 1976.
16Opario, A. I., Genesis and Evolutionary Development of Life. Acad.
Press. 1968.
17Fnsbishce, M., B. D. Hinsdill, K. J. Crabtree and C. B. Goodheart,
Fundamentals
of Microbiology, 9th ed. W. B. Saunders Co. p. 21, 1974.
18Wald, C. Scientific American. August, 1954.
19Miller, S. L., Science. 117, p. 528, 1953.
20Fox, S. W, ed., The Origins of Prebiological Systems, Acad. Press,
p. 221, 1965.
21lbid. p. 39.
22King, M. C., and A. C. Wilson, Science. Vol. 188, p. 107, 1975.
23Bethell, T., Harper's Magazine, Feb. 1976.
24Von Baer, K. E., Augsburger Allgemeine Zeitong, No. 130, p. 1986, 1873.
25Savagc, J. M., Evolution, 2nd ed., Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc. p. 118,
p. 72, 1969.
26Goldschmidt, B. B., The Material Basis of Evolution, Yale Univ.
Press. 1940.
27Goldschmidt, Ii. 13., American Scientist. 40, p. 84, 1952.
28King, J. L. and T. H. Joke, Science, p. 788, May 16, 1969.
29Sparks, H., Journal ASA, 23, No. 4, p. 123, 1971.
30Stanley, S. M., Proc. Natl. Acad. Sc. USA, 72, p. 646, 1975.
31Lewis, J., The Religions of the World Made Simple, Doubleday & Co., Inc.,
1958.
32Elliott-Binns, L. K., English Thoughts, 1860-1900. The Theological
Aspect, The
Seabnry Press. 1956.
33DeChardin, T., Christianity & Evolution, Harper & Row, 1969.
34Fosdick, H. E., The Modern Use of the Bible, The Macmillan Co. 1924.
35Wallbank, T. W. and A. M. Taylor, Civilization Past and
Present, 4th ed. Scott, Foresman and Co. Vol. 2, p. 361. 1961.
36Mnssolini, The Encyclopedia Britannica, 16:27. 1957.
37Zirkle, C., Evolution, Marxian Biology, and the Social Scene, Univ. of Penn.
Press, P. 85, 1959.
38Bixler, J. S., "Pragmatism" An Encyclopedia of
Religion, The
Philosophical Library, p. 601, 1945.
39Meyer, A. E., The Development of Education in the 20th
Century, Prentice.Hsll,
Inc. 1940.
4ORoback, A. A., History of Asnerican Psychology, Library Pub. 1952.
41Thomas, H., The Living World of Philosophy, The Blackiston Co. 1946.
42Science. Jan. 30, 1970. Wonderly, D., Journal ASA, p. 145,
Dec. 1975.
43Yonng, E. J. Studies in Genesis One, Presbyterian and Reformed Pub.
Co. 1964.
44Buswell, J. 0. II, "Length of Creative Days" in Chronology,
Davis Bible Dictionary, 1935.
45Ramm, B., The Christian View of Science and Scripture, Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub.
Co. p. 145, 1954. Ramm also mentions several other theologians who
hold the same
view.
46Mixter, R. L., Creation and Evolution, 2nd ed., Amer. Sc. Affil.
Monograph, 1967.
47Buswell, J. 0. III in Evolution and Christian Thought Today,
R L. Mister, ed. W. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co. 1959.
48Hamilton, F. C., The Basis of Evolutionary Faith, James Clarke & Co. p.
150, 1931,
49Sire, J., The Universe Next Door, Inter-Varsity Press, p. 61. 1976.
50Grant, V., Plant Speciation, Columbia Univ. Press. 1971.
51Grvene, J. C., Darwin and the Modern World View, Louisiana State Univ. Press.
1961.