DT > (b) The proposed processes of evolutionary change (involving
> mutations and natural selection) invoke features which belong
> to the world subject to "bondage to decay". To associate such
> mechanisms with God's creative activity is to darken his
> character. It is effectively to say that God created a world
> which carries the consequences of Adam's sin - and even
> unbelievers find this thought unpalatable.
Loren has some probing questions:
Could you be more specific? Which features belong to "bondage to
decay"? Physical death? Pain? Harmful mutations? As they apply to
animals? Humans?
Steven goes into more detail in his response:
The "bondage to decay" of Rom 8:20, should not be
overstated. It is stated clearly in Gn 3:16-19 what this
involved: "To the woman he said, "I will greatly increase your
pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children.
Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you."
To Adam he said, "Because you listened to your wife and ate from
the tree about which I commanded you, 'You must not eat of it,'
"Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you
will eat of it all the days of your life. It will produce thorns
and thistles for you, and you will eat the plants of the field.
By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return
to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and
to dust you will return."
The above seems to be summed up by a partial withdrawal of
grace. It could be seen as letting nature take its normal course,
ie. as outside the Garden. It implies that Eve would have
experienced some pain in childbirth, but now it would be "greatly
increase(d)". There already were "thorns and thistles" (otherwise
Adam wouldn't have known what they were), but now they would be
not restrained. Adam would have to "subdue" the earth (Gn 1:28),
but without the fullness of God's grace.
I see nothing in this that rules out "mutations and natural
selection" nor can I see how these would "darken his (God's)
character" if He used these natural mechanisms. They have
unquestionably, through micro-evolution, enhanced the beauty and
variety of this fallen world.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for this feedback. I will argue that the
perspective Steven places on Paul's teaching does not do justice
to the cosmic dimensions of Christ's redemption.
Paul did not make his Romans 8 statement in a vacuum. The
context is the Old Testament, which does point us to Adam, the
entrance of sin and the Edenic Curse.
What is the "creation" referred to in Romans 8? We might
answer: the product of the creative act referred to in Romans
1:20. But other answers have been suggested: mankind, the sub-
human animals, man's experience of the Garden of Eden - bit I
think these are misidentifications. In vs 19, 21 and 23,
believers are distinguished from the "creation" - so the
"mankind" interpretation should be rejected. For the purposes
of my argument, I can live with "sub-human animals" - but on the
basis of Genesis 3:17 conclude that "creation" must refer to more
than these. The cosmic scope of Romans 8 suggests that a focus
on the Garden of Eden is astray. Theologically, man was given
dominion over the non-rational creation (animate and inanimate),
not just over the Garden of Eden. When Adam fell, the Curse came
upon everything over which he had been given dominion.
In Romans 5, Paul emphasises the consequences of Adam's sin
for mankind; in Romans 8, he links nature as a whole with the
plight of Adam's race. This leads us to a picture of "creation
in three states":
(a) the original "very good" creation, free from futility and
decay;
(b) the present creation bearing the marks of the Curse,
characterised by futility, bondage to decay and groaning;
(c) the future participation in Christ's cosmic redemption:
deliverance from futility and decay and participating in the
freedom of God's children.
"Decay" is contrasted with "glory" in verse 21. A similar
contrast is in 1 Corinthians 15:42f where Paul discusses the
resurrection of the dead. Our decaying bodies are perishable,
mortal, subject to death. I do not see how we can exclude the
sense of death from the meaning of "decay". The inference, then,
is that this characteristic (bondage to decay) was absent from
the world as originally created.
I think we are free to consider whether some forms of death
are not the result of God's Curse, but part of his created order.
There is no controversy, for example, over the death of plants.
For the purposes of this post, I am not proposing answers to this
issue - but I am suggesting that death in the animal kingdom that
is painful and untimely (predation, disease, physical
catastrophe) is rightly described as "bondage to decay" from
which the creation groans and waits in anticipation of release
by Christ (its Creator).
Consequently, for biblical reasons (as well as scientific -
as already mentioned), I cannot take seriously an explanation
of origins involving concepts like the survival of the fittest
and natural selection. These concepts are fine for studies of
ecology in the present creation, but are not relevant to origins.
And I must conclude with an apology: I have not covered
everything that I ought to, and there are many other issues
waiting a response - but I'm under pressure of time. I hope this
does not show too much in what I have written!
Best wishes,
*** From David J. Tyler, CDT Department, Hollings Faculty,
Manchester Metropolitan University, UK.
Telephone: 0161-247-2636 ***