Science in Christian Perspective
Creation and/or Evolution
DAVID L. WILLIS
Department of General Science
Oregon State University
Corvallis, Oregon 97331
From: JASA 29 (June 1977): 68-72.
The two terms in my title are regarded by many people as violently
antithetical.
It is my purpose to demonstrate that such is not necessarily the case. I shall
attempt to show that the Biblical record of creation allows more evolutionary
change than many socalled "Creationists" admit. Conversely,
the scientific
evidence for a totally evolutionary scheme of life is not nearly so conclusive
and overwhelming as so-called "Evolutionists" often state.
Four Assumptions
Let me state the assumptions upon which I propose to build my
arguments. The first
assumption is that the Old and New Testaments constitute a
trustworthy and accurate
record of God's relation to man and the natural world. This record is divinely
inspired (in the orthodox sense of the term), yet it bears the
distinctive imprint
of its various human writers and the sources from which they drew
their information.
Secondly, the creation account in chapters 1 and 2 of Genesis, while
pre-scientific
and nonanalytical in character, is nevertheless an accurate general description
of the origin and subsequent early development of the natural world. It may not
be merely written off as unrelated to the scientific evidence.
However, the abbreviated
and summary nature of the account and its strongly anthropocentric
viewpoint should
caution us against attempting any detailed correlation with the
geological record.
Thirdly, the application of man's God-given capacities for logical
and systematic
investigation of the natural world-scientific study-is a valid enterprise. It
is valid precisely because the results of creation appear to he a
basically rational
and comprehensible universe. However, it should be noted that the
scientific study
of non-repeatable occurrences of the distant past involves a very large margin
of uncertainty compared to the investigation of contemporary events. Although
science deals with natural rather than supernatural processes, it is
not thereby
intrinsically biased toward atheism.
Lastly, since we regard the Biblical record to be an accurate
sourcebook and the
application of the scientific method to the natural world a valid approach, there can exist no ultimate
conflict in our interpretation of the two. Given our assumptions,
apparent discrepancies
must be the result of incomplete evidence or faulty interpretation of
one or both
sources. A major goal of the Christian scientist is to formulate
and/or identify
positions which satisfactorily harmonize the scientific evidence with
the Scriptures,
without doing violence to either.
Genesis Record of Origins
With these assumptions clarified, let us next consider the Genesis
record of origins.
This portion of the Bible is familiar, perhaps too familiar. With
such passages,
there is always the danger of reading into the text meaning that is not there.
(For example, how many of you conceive of Adam as any other than a red-blooded,
all-American boy? We don't get this racial bias from the text, but from our own
mental interpolation.) A hyper-literal interpretation of Genesis accompanied by
a wholesale reading into the text of inferred or supposed concepts
characterizes
much of the current Creationist movement. Christian scientists must
come to grips
with this approach.
The self-styled "Creationists" make much of a
"literal" interpretation
of chapters 1 and 2 of Genesis. Explicit in their view is a series of
recent creative
acts that produced a world and its array of living forms much like
those of today.
Creative acts are usually defined as instantaneous and involving
neither natural
processes nor use of pre-existing materials. Greater or lesser emphasis may be
placed on a universal cataclysmic deluge which accounted for fossils and other
such troublesome artifacts. This literalistic interpretation is
commonly promulgated
as "The Christian View of Creation." With this approach to creation
in mind, let us examine the pertinent Biblical terms and their
apparent meanings.
Translation of Key Words
Attention immediately centers on the Hebrew word bara, commonly
translated "create."
This word or its derivatives occur only seven times in the Genesis record of origins (1:1, 21, 27 [three limes]; 2:3,4) and about forty
times elsewhere
in the Old Testament. God is always the subject of the verb and it
normally refers
to some unique formative action. The product may be concrete
("man"-Gen.
1:26) or abstract ("a clean heart" Psalm 51:10). Beyond this point one
cannot realistically drive the meaning of the term. It is important
to recognize
here that the Old Testament is the only extant Hebrew literature of
its era. Thus,
for such infrequently used words the opportunity to crosscheck their range of
meanings with the context of other literary types is absent. The point is that
we do not have a precise definition of tiara from the Bible, itself.
Does tiara uniformly refer to an instantaneous creation without process or use
of pre-existing material? Let us examine the instances where it is
used. In Genesis
1: 1 (" In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."), the
traditional meaning very well may, apply. Unless one assumes that
matter is eternal,
this verse apparently records the origin of matter de novo and its
assembly into
the astronomical bodies. However, the verse is a brief, but majestic statement
of results, not necessarily ruling out process.
The next occurrence is in Genesis 1:21 ("And God created great whales, and
every living creature that
moveth ). The context here does not define the
nature of the creative act. From verse 20, one might infer that some
natural process
was involved.
Any argument for a restricted meaning of tiara is badly shaken by the context
of the remaining usages in Genesis. In verse 27, the verb is repeated
three times
in connection with the origin of the first humans. However, the previous verse
states, "And God said, Let
us make man in our image . The word "make" here
is the Hebrew asah. It is the common term for "make" or
"do"
and is used hundreds of times in the Old Testament with a wide range
of meanings.
The subject of this verb is variously man, God, animals, etc. It
commonly involves
natural processes and use of materials. Furthermore, in Genesis
2:3,4, the words
tiara and asah are used interchangeably in immediate and parallel context. In
view of the very general meaning of asah, it would strain the clear statements
in these passages to attempt to assign a special and restrictive
meaning to bara.
If creation is to be understood as an event without process or use of
pre-existing
material, one is confronted with the description of Adam's origin in
Genesis 2:7.
Here the pre-existing material ("dust") and at least some
process ("breathed
into his nostrils") are clearly stated for even a literalist to see. The
word here translated "formed" is also significant. It is the Hebrew
yatsar, whose root meaning is to mold or form. It is commonly used of human or
divine activity in the Old Testament and relates to a variety of manufacturing
activities, among them pottery making. Whether in this context God was making
the original human crackpot, I'll leave to your decision!
In summary, one cannot derive from the context in Genesis 1 and 2 the
restricted
meaning of "create" that the creationists desire. The
special term tiara
is used interchangeably with common words for acts of purely human production.
In fact, in Isaiah 43:7 all three of the above words are used in a
perfectly
The biblical record of creation does not rule out the divine employment of natural processes in either origins or subsequent development. The record simply states that behind all matter and life stands God, the Creator.
parallel series to describe God's relation to the Jews! We must avoid insisting
on a special definition for the word "create" which goes beyond the
more general use in the Bible, itself.
Must Creation Be Instantaneous?
The emphasis on creation being instantaneous, or at least without use of long
time periods is another problem. This emphasis often is tied to an interesting
theological attitude. I sadly remember a debate with a well-known conservative
Old Testament scholar several years ago on these matters. He fervently insisted
that a series of instantaneous creative acts over a literal period of six days
was a key Christian belief related to the omnipotence of God. I can't
forget the
look on his face when I mischievously reduced his argument to
absurdity. My observations
went something like this, "If God's omnipotence is revealed by a six-day
creation, then wouldn't He be more omnipotent (sic) if He
accomplished it in only
one day? He would be still more omnipotent if it took place in only one hour,
etc., etc." In dealing with such matters we must always remember that it
is not a question of what God can do, but what He did do.
The Genesis record of origins does not contain a clear statement of
its purpose.
We would probably agree that this purpose is religious, not
scientific. However,
it is not thereby scientifically in error. The common denominator of religions
of the ancient world was the identification of deity(ies) with natural features
or manmade images-idolatry. The repeated religious failure of the Jews was to
lapse into the idolatrous customs of neighboring cultures. The Jewish prophets
regularly pointed out that the God who "created heaven and
earth" cannot
be appropriately represented by an image or a natural feature of the creation.
In other words, a clear view of the creator-role of God is
antithetical to idolatry.
In our time old-fashioned idolatry is somewhat out of style. Instead
of an overeagerness
to see God in every tree or stone, our age would largely reason Him
out of business.
Here, again, the emphasis on the Creator-God is pertinent. Atheistic humanism
that sees man as "the measure of all things" may be opposed
by the clear
statement, "In the beginning God created.
It would be tragic if the definition of creation were made so restrictive as to
be wholly incompatible with the record of science. This would allow
our contemporaries
to avoid the philosophical impact of God the creator because of our scientific
obscurantism.
The biblical record of creation does not rule out the divine
employment of natural
processes in either origins or subsequent development. The length of
time involved
is not an essential factor. The record simply states that behind all matter and
life stands
God, the Creator. The details of origin (creation) and subsequent
change (evolution)
are in the realm of science, not theology. Any attempt to read all of
the scientific
evidence through the narrow slit of a particular restrictive
"creationist"
interpretation is both unfortunate and untenable.
Dogma of Evolution
Just as some "creationists" promulgate a narrowly
literalistic interpretation
of Genesis, so many contemporary scientists proclaim the dogma of
evolution. Before
evaluating this matter, let us carefully define the term. Evolution basically
means "change." As used by biologists, it refers to changes
in populations
of living organisms by natural processes over a span of time. There are really
two levels of usage for this term, although the important distinctions between
them are often blurred in common practice. Limited evolution (microevolution)
involves the formation of new species or varieties by natural
selection operating
on the genetic pool of a population over a limited period of time.
By contrast, general evolution envisions an extension of such limited changes
to account for the origin of all living and extinct species of organisms from
a single source over the span of geological time. It is this broad
generalization
about the presumed interrelationship of all living things that is
usually intended
by the unmodified word "evolution." In addition, chemical evolution
is a term frequently used today. It refers to assumed pre-biotic changes on the
primeval earth which gave rise to the first organism(s) by purely
natural means.
Judging from the outcries by leading biological and scientific
societies and leaders
regarding textbook controversies, general evolution is yet a
strongly-held contemporary
dogma, if not a sacred cow. Introductory biology textbooks commonly treat the
theory as proven beyond all shadow of doubt. Statements such as, "the vast
majority of scientists accept evolution," suggest that scientific troth is
determined by the ballot box. From my own experience in 21 years of teaching,
few students (or faculty for that matter) are aware that a significant minority
viewpoint exists. I mean from a scientific, not a religious basis.
Let us consider
some of these criticisms of the general evolutionary theory.
Criticisms of General Evolution
Several contemporary biologists have attempted to make the point that most of
the evidence presented for general evolution, in fact, substantiates
only limited
evolution. General evolutionary theory is primarily a grand
extrapolation of this
evidence. Limited evolution is rather clearly demonstrable, whereas
general evolution
should be regarded much more hesitantly at present.
In the preface to his book Implications of Evolution,
C. S. Kerkut, a leading invertebrate zoologist at the University of
Southampton,
England, suecintly summarizes the situation,
May I here humbly state as part of my biological credo that I believe that the
theory of Evolution as presented by orthodox evolutionists is in many
ways a satisfying
explanation of some of the evidence. At the same time I
think that the attempt to explain all living forms in terms of an
evolution from
is unique source, though a brave and valid attempt, is one that is
premature and
not satisfactorily supported by present-day evidence. It may in fact be shown
ultimately to he the correct explanation, but the supporting evidence remains
to be discovered. We can, if we like, believe that such an evolutionary system
has taken place, but I for one do not think that "it has been
proven beyond
all reasonable doubt." In the pages of the book that follow I
shall present
evidence for the point of view that there are many discrete groups of animals
and that we do not know how they have evolved nor how they are interrelated. It
is possible that they might have evolved quite independently from discrete and
separate sources. (pp. vii-viii).
Dr. John T. Bonner of Princeton University, in his
review of Kerkut's book in the American Scientist,
responded with deep feeling to Kerkut's approach,
This is a book with a disturbing message; it points to some unseemly cracks in
the foundations. One is disturbed because what is said gives us the
uneasy feeling
that we knew it for a long time deep down but were never willing to admit this
even to ourselves. It is another one of those cold and uncompromising
situations
where the naked truth and human nature travel in different
directions. (p. 240).
A quite different criticism of aspects of general evolution has been raised by
several mathematicians in recent years. The thrust of their criticism was that
computerized mathematical models of evolutionary phenomena did not
fit the evolutionary
time scale. There simply hasn't been enough time to account for all
the presumed
evolutionary changes based on a mechanism of natural selection of
mutant characteristics.
Moreover, they objected to the concept that blind selection (chance)
could result
in cumulative improvements in populations. No mathematical models
could encompass
such a situation. In other words, the proposed means are inadequate to account
for the presumed results of general evolution.
A formal symposium featuring a frank confrontation between some of
these mathematicians
(led by Dr. Murray Eden of M.I.T.) and well known evolutionary
theorists was held
in 1966. The proceedings of this symposium were published under the revealing
title of Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation
of Evolution.
The verbatim transcript of the discussions following each position
paper revealed
just how closed was the circle of evidence considered by some
evolutionary thinkers.
Loren Eiseley, giving the introductory address at the symposium identified the
problem,
- . we should give serious thought to the question of whether we have reached
a certain point of hesitation in our seemingly clear explanation of
the way evolution
comes about. Have we really answered all the questions; .In connection with some of these obscure problems of related
mutations, or variations
that have to be related almost from the beginning in order to be effective, he
[Darwin] was not as confident in some of his
expressions as the neo-Darwinists . The point, it
seems to me, - . - lies - - - over in another domain of the
organismic approach,
the problem of whether there are some aspects of life, and of chemistry under
the control of life, which are not yet totally accountable for with the meant
at our command. (pp. 3-4).
Here, he is clearly addressing the almost cocky attitude of some
molecular biologists
today who insist that life is only an extension of chemistry and physics. Eiseley gently
suggests that such
a conclusion may be a trifle premature in light of many unexplained phenomena
of life.
The fossil record is appealed to as conclusive evidence that general evolution
has occurred according to the classic pattern. It is not always made clear that
while fossil remains are "facts," the interpretation of
their interrelationships
in time and space is often tenuous. Frequently, lines of descent for a series
of fossil "species" (such as the horse) are based on fossils found at
random in widely remote regions of the earth. To justify such
questionable interpretations,
appeal is made to hypothetical dispersion routes, corridors and
filters. Elaborate
biogeographieal schemes have been propounded of which P. J.
Darlington's Zoogeography:
The Geographical Distribution of Animals is a classic. All such
schemes envision
an essentially stable system of continents which changed in only
minor geographic
details.
The revolutionary development of the geophysical theory of plate
tectonics during
the past decade has now established that the continents indeed have
moved extensively
and continue to do so. The older idea of continental drift is again in vogue,
but now with a reasonable scientific mechanism. Evolutionary schemes based on
former biogeographical concepts are now hopelessly obsolete. Hypotheses about
the adaptive radiation of various plant and animal groups, relict populations,
etc., are now undergoing wholesale revision. A recent volume in this
area, Evolution, Mammals, and Southern Continents, is one of the first books on
historical biogeography
to appear since continental movement became a fact. Anyone familiar
with the former
schemes is shocked to discover just how many settled issues have suffered major
surgery or been abandoned. Clearly, it is premature to be dogmatic
about the implications
of at least the terrestrial fossil record at this point in history.
Philosophical Inadequacies of Darwinian Theory
Too frequently, scientific considerations of evolution deal
exclusively with the
hard data and their interpretation. Such is the framework of
scientific training.
Philosophers of science, however, view the subject with a much
broader perspective.
It is from this angle that some of the most serious objections to
Darwinian evolution
come. Many names are associated with this attack, but Dr. Marjorie Crene, of the
University of California at Davis, is the most readable from my perspective. In
her book The Knower and the Known in a masterful chapter entitled
"The Faith
of Darwinism" she charts the philosophical inadequacies of
Darwinian theory.
I would recommend her writings to anyone seriously interested in this subject.
A few quotations may whet your appetite.
Relative to the oft-cited case of industrial melanism and English
peppered moths,
she states:
Here, say the neo-Darwinians, is natural selection, that is,
evolution, actually
going on. But to this we may answer: selection, yes; the colour of
moths or snails
or mice is clearly controlled by visibility to predators; but 'evolution'? Do
these observations explain how in the first place there came to he any moths or
snails or mice at all? By what right are we to extrapolate the pattern by which
colour or other such superficial
As a biologist and a Christian committed to the Scriptures as God's revelation, I believe that the concepts of creation and evolutionary change, properly understood, are compatible.
characters are governed to the origin of species, let alone of orders,
classes, phyla
of living organisms? But, say the neo-Darwinians again, natural
selection is the
only mechanism we observe in present-day nature. But again, if this were so, we
should still have no right to say that the only mechanism we see at work now is
the only one that has been at work in all the long past of the living
world. Nor,
for that matter, is it the only 'mechanism'. (pp. 193-194).
Her most telling criticisms deal with the inadequacy of natural
selection to really
"explain" the facts of life:
It is precisely the insistence on the equation of life with
adaptation that defines
the limits of Darwinism, and it is doubt of the all-inclusiveness of adaptation
as a concept definitive of life that motivates the most effective objections to
the Darwinian synthesis . . . . One may indeed ask whether all adaptations have
arisen by Darwioian-Meodclian means; but one may also ask, as some
eminent biologists
do, whether evolution, on a large as well as a small scale, is
essentially a matter
of adaptation at all . . . . There are, indeed, all the minute
specialized divergences
like those of the Galapagos finches which so fascinated Darwin; it is
their story
that is told in the Origin and elaborated by the selectionists today. But these
are dead ends, last minutiae of development; it is not from them that the great
massive novelties of evolution could have sprung. For this, such
dissenters feel,
is the major evolutionary theme: great new inventions, new ideas of
living, which
arise with startling suddenness, proliferate in a variety of
directions, yet persist
with fundamental constancy-as in Darwinian terms they would have no reason in
the world to do. Neither the origin and persistence of great new
modes of lifephotosyntlscsis,
breathing, thinking-nor all the intricate and co-ordinated changes
needed to support
them, are explained or even made conceivable on the Darwinian view.
(pp. 196-197).
Perhaps the most revealing evaluation of evolutionary theory she gives is from
the philosophical standpoint.
Yet, if all this is so, why is the neo-Darwinian theory so
confidently affirmed?
Because neoDarwinism is not only a scientific theory, and a
comprehensive, seemingly
self-confirming theory, but a theory deeply embedded in a metaphysical faith:
in the faith that science can and must explain all the phenomena of nature in
terms of one hypothesis, and that an hypothesis of maximum
simplicity, of maximum
impersonality and objectivity. Relatively speaking, ncoDarwinism is logically
simple: there are just two things happening, chance variations and
the elimination
of the worst ones among them; and both these happenings are just plain facts,
things that do or don't happen, yes or no. Nature is like a vast
computing machine
set up in binary digits; no mystery there. And -what man has not yet
achieved-the
machine is selfprogrammed: it began by chance, it continues automatically, its
master plan itself creeping up on itself, so to speak, by means of
its own automatism.
Again, no mystery there; man seems at home in a simply rational
world. (pp. 199-200).
Summary
In summary, the actual Biblical statements about creation are not as definitive
nor as restrictive as to process and time as many creationists demand. Taken at face value, the Genesis
account seems to describe the divine origin of a variety of distinctive forms
of life. These forms subsequently produced descendants by purely
natural processes.
The general theory of evolution postulates an ultimate relatedness of
all living
forms because of a common ancestry and origin. Natural selection operating on
random mutations in populations is proposed as the effective method to produce
the present diversity of life. However, both the ultimate biological
relatedness
of all forms and the effectiveness of the proposed mechanism are
seriously being
questioned today. Kerkut, in the closing paragraph of his book
sumarizes the current
situation.
There is a theory which states that many living animals can he
observed over the
course of time to undergo changes so that new species are formed. This can he
called the "Special Theory of Evolution" and can he demonstrated in
certain cases by experiments. On the other hand there is the theory
that all the
living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which
itself came from
an inorganic form. This theory can be called the "General Theory
of Evolution"
and the evidence that supports it is not sufficiently strong to allow
us to consider
it as anything more than a working hypothesis. It is not clear
whether the changes
that bring about speciation are of the same nature as those that brought about
the development of new phyla. The answer will be found by future experimental
work and not by dogmatic assertions that the General Theory of Evolution must
be correct because there is nothing else that will satisfactorily
take its place.
(p. 157).
Several hypotheses which would harmonize the biblical statements with
the current
scientific evidence exist. One is particularly attractive to me. It
proposes that
the major forms of life were indeed brought into existence by some unique and
non-repeatable mechanism (creation?). Thereafter, natural selection
or other natural
factors led to diversification within broad limits. Determination of the range
of these limits is a subject for scientific investigation and, thus,
must remain
an open question for the present. This approach actually fits the general data
of paleontology as well as the general theory of evolution does. In addition,
it serves to explain the evident absence of transitional forms
between major groups
of organisms and the lack of evidence for phyletic evolutionary origins.
Most importantly, such an approach allows for new scientific data to
he accommodated
without the necessity of a major revision of one's theoretical
foundations. This
latter point is crucial, as witness the exhaustive efforts of certain
"creationists"
to discredit any and every type of evidence for a great age of the earth. They
are forced into such desperate actions because the concept of a recent earth is
a key plank in their philosophical platform. To borrow the language
of the "uptight"
generation, our broad hypotheses should "hang loose,"
avoiding rigidly
fixed positions which, like the Maginot Line of the 1940's, may be outflanked
by a novel offensive.
As a biologist and a Christian committed to the Scriptures as God's relevation,
I believe that the concepts of creation and evolutionary change,
properly understood,
are compatible. One need not sacrifice the accuracy of the Genesis account or
the validity of the scientific record in any shotgun marriage. Thus, the divine
origin of the forms of life by methods at present unresolved is not
in opposition
to present scientific evidence. Nor, on the other hand, is the
occurrence of extensive
evolutionary change over great periods of time irreconcilable with the Biblical
record. The "golden mean" of truth in this area will be found neither
with the hyperliteralism of some creationists nor with the narrow dogmatism of
the more numerous neo-Darwinians.
REFERENCES
1Kerkut, G.A. (1960) Implications of Evolution. New York, Pergamon Press, 174
p.
2Bonoer, John Tyler. (1961) Perspectives. American Scientist
49:240-244. June.
3Moorbead, Paul S., and Martin M. Kaplan (eds.). (1967)
Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution. A Symposium held at The Wistar Institute of
Anatomy and Biology,
April 2526, 1966. Philadelphia, Wistar Institute Press. 140 p. (The
Wistar Institute Symposium Monograph No. 5).
4Darlington, P. J., Jr. (1957) Zoogeography: the Geographical
Distribution of Animals. New York, Wiley.
5Keast, Allen, Frank C. Erk, and Bentley Glass (eds.). (1972)
Evolution, Mammals,
and Southern Continents. Albany, S.U.N.Y. Press. 544 p. (Reviewed by David S.
Woodruff in Science 180:603-605, May 11, 1973).
6Grene, Mariorie. 11966) The Knower and the Known. London,
Faber and Faber. 283 p.