From: Keith Miller (kbmill@ksu.edu)
Date: Sat Sep 06 2003 - 18:41:20 EDT
Josh:
Below is a letter that I wrote to a pastor of a local church where ICR
was to give a workshop. I was given the opportunity to give an evening
presentation at the church a few months later. The letter is a
description of how I approached the issues. Perhaps it might be
helpful for you.
Keith
EVOLUTIONARY THEORY AND CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY
Simply stated, my position is that there is no inherent conflict
between evolutionary theory and a Christian faith with a high view of
scripture. By evolution I mean the theory that all living things on
Earth are descended from a common ancestor through a continuity of
cause-and effect processes. I believe that there are no necessary
breaks or gaps in causal explanations. That is, all transitions in the
history of life are potentially explicable in terms of "natural"
cause-and-effect processes. This theory is no mere guess or hunch, but
an extremely well-supported explanation of the observed record of
organic change. It has great explanatory power in drawing together an
incredibly wide range of data from many disciplines in an explanatory
framework. It has been very effective in generating fruitful and
testable hypotheses that have driven new discoveries and advanced our
scientific understanding of the universe.
I accept the Bible as authoritative and true in what God intends it to
communicate. However, simply accepting the truth of the Biblical
writings does not indicate the meaning of those writings. Just as our
observations of the natural world must be interpreted within some
explanatory framework, scripture also must be interpreted. There is no
such thing as an objective reading of scripture. The question for the
Christian is then - What is the best interpretive framework for any
given passage of scripture. I am convinced on the basis of current
evangelical scholarship that the best interpretation of the first
chapters of Genesis is a literary one in which neither time nor
chronology is part of the intended message.
Finally, I fully and unhesitatingly accept the doctrine of Creation.
God is the Creator of all things and nothing would exist without God's
continually willing it to be. God is intimately and actively involved
in all natural processes. Every natural process is as much an act of a
personal Creator as any miracle. The best term for this view of God's
creative activity is "continuous creation." Furthermore, I believe
that God's existence can be known in the creation through faith.
However, scientific observation provides no proof of the existence of a
creator God, indeed it cannot. Neither does scientific description,
however complete, provide any argument against a Creator. Since God
acts through process, evolution and the theology of Creation are
perfectly compatible. In fact, I see them as positively reinforcing.
An evolutionary understanding of Creation illuminates our theological
understanding, and theology places our scientific discoveries in a more
comprehensive context and provides necessary moral guidance in the
scientific endeavor.
Much of the controversy over evolution and creation seems to rest
firmly on the widely held view that evolution and Christianity are in
irreconcilable conflict. However, this conflict view has been
thoroughly discredited by both theological and historical scholarship.
Christian theologians (including evangelicals) have long recognized
that a faithful reading of Scripture does not demand a young Earth nor
does it prohibit God's use of evolutionary mechanisms to accomplish His
creative will. Many evangelical Christians at the time of Darwin found
no inherent conflict between evolutionary theory and scripture. In
fact, several of the authors of the "Fundamentals" (the set of volumes
that gave us the term 'fundamentalist") accepted some form of
evolutionary theory. Even B.B Warfield, who argued forcefully for
Biblical inerrancy, accepted the validity of evolution as a scientific
description of origins. The primary advocates of evolutionary theory
in America included Asa Gray, George Frederick Wright, and James Dana
-- all committed evangelical Christians. Evangelical theologians
today widely recognize that scripture is not properly seen as a source
of scientific understanding. Questions of natural mechanisms and
processes are simply not the concern of the Biblical texts.
Many theologically orthodox Christians have viewed evolution since the
publication of The Origin of Species, as a positive contribution to
understanding God's creative and redemptive work. For many, important
theological truths concerning the nature of humanity, the goodness of
creation, God's providence, and the meaning of the Cross and suffering
find renewed significance and amplification when applied to an
evolutionary view of God's creative work. The integration of an
evolutionary understanding of Earth and life history with theological
understandings of God's creative and redemptive activity has yielded
important insights. The fruits of these efforts need to be more widely
known and discussed. There is a desperate need to diffuse the heated
conflict that has grown up around the issue of evolution. The
evolution/creation "warfare" view has effectively inhibited productive
popular dialogue on important theological and scientific issues.
Despite the long theological dialogue with evolutionary theory, many
people continue to view evolution as inherently anti-theistic and
inseparably wedded to a worldview that denies God and objective
morality. Although this understanding of the meaning of evolutionary
theory is strongly promoted by some, its conflation of metaphysical
naturalism with evolution is widely rejected as philosophically,
theologically, and historically false, and is recognized as damaging to
the discipline of science. Science is a methodology, a limited way of
knowing about the natural world. Scientific research proceeds by the
search for chains of cause-and-effect, and confines itself to the
investigation of "natural" entities and forces. This self-limitation
is sometimes referred to as methodological naturalism. Science
restricts itself to proximate causes, and the confirmation or denial of
ultimate causes is beyond its capacity. Science does not deny the
existence of a creator -- it is simply silent on the existence or
action of God because its methods are useless to answer metaphysical
questions. Methodological naturalism is a description of what
empirical inquiry is. It is certainly not a statement of the nature of
cosmic reality. Science pursues truth within very narrow limits. Our
most profound questions about the nature of reality (questions of
meaning and purpose and morality), while they may arise from within
science, are theological or philosophical in nature and their answers
lie beyond the reach of science.
Theology, like science, must take account of the evidence at hand.
While distinct, our scientific and theological understandings must
inform each other if we are to be intellectually whole persons.
Theology and science while addressing different realities and different
questions are not hermetically sealed ways of knowing. Maintaining
clear definitions of different types of knowledge actually aids in
their integration. The confusion of metaphysical naturalism with
evolutionary theory inhibits the productive interaction between the
sciences and Christian theology. It does so by injecting into a
scientific theory a metaphysical worldview that is simply not a part of
the theory.
One commonly held perspective that tends to reinforce a conflict view
of science and faith is that God's action or involvement is confined to
those events that lack a scientific explanation. Meaningful divine
action is equated with breaks in chains of cause-and-effect processes.
This view has been called a "God-of-the-gaps" theology. God's creative
action is seen only, or primarily, in the gaps of human knowledge where
scientific description fails. With this perspective, each advance of
scientific description results in a corresponding reduction in the
realm of divine action. Conflict between science and faith is thus
assured. However, this is a totally unnecessary state of affairs.
God's creative activity is clearly identified in the Bible as including
natural processes, including what we call chance or random events.
According to scripture, God is providentially active in all natural
processes, and all of creation declares the glory of God. The evidence
for God's presence in creation, for the existence of a creator God, is
declared to be precisely those everyday "natural events" experienced by
us all. Thus Christians should not fear causal explanations. Complete
scientific descriptions of events or processes should pose no threat to
Christian theism. Rather, each new advance in our scientific
understanding can be met with excitement and praise at the revelation
of God's creative hand.
PRESENTATION IDEAS
The “Creation/Evolution debate” is often presented as though the
doctrine of Creation and the scientific theory of evolution are
mutually exclusive categories. As the above indicates, this is simply
not the case. In addition, my perspective is one among many that
comprise a whole spectrum of positions. It is important to help
Christians become aware of this diversity of views, in order to diffuse
the conflict and schism that often surrounds the discussion of Earth
and life history within the evangelical community.
I believe that the most fundamental issues are those of scriptural
interpretation and the nature of science. In my experience, much of
the conflict stems from misunderstandings of the nature and limitations
of scientific inquiry, and attempts to make scripture speak on issues
it was not intended to address. These are topics that deserve serious
discussion.
Another problem is the general lack of understanding among the public
of the available evidence for Earth and life history, and how that
evidence is interpreted. As a geologist and paleontologist, I can
state confidently that the preserved evidence for an ancient Earth and
for a dynamic evolving history of life is simply overwhelming.
In light of the above, I would suggest that two presentations would be
appropriate. One would focus on issues of scriptural interpretation
and the nature of science. The other would focus on the scientific
evidence. These presentations could be given the same evening, or on
two separate days. In either case, I would make an effort to maximize
the time available for open questioning. Answering (or at least
responding to) specific questions from those attending is often the
most effective way of getting down to the issues that are of most
concern.
My hope is that those who attend would be exposed to a position that
they might not have heard before, and that this would stimulate
thoughtful and prayerful reflection. Most of all, I would be immensely
gratified if such a presentation would lead people to value others as
brothers and sisters in Christ who may have very different perspectives
on issues tangential to the core of the Christian gospel.
Keith B. Miller
Research Assistant Professor
Dept of Geology, Kansas State University
Manhattan, KS 66506-3201
785-532-2250
http://www-personal.ksu.edu/~kbmill/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Sep 06 2003 - 18:52:54 EDT