This book looks at three prominent positions held by Christians in the ongoing "Creation & Evolution" debate. The three positions are (1) the young earth view, (2) old earth creationism, and (3) theistic evolution. The book is set up as follows: a scholar holding to each particular view gives his reasons why his position should be adopted, and other scholars have an opportunity to respond to his arguments.
One of the problems with the whole Creation & Evolution debate is that terms aren't defined. The process of evolution stands in stark contrast against the concept of creation. Christians denounce evolution as claiming God's place; naturalistic evoloutionists denounce creation because it's no longer needed in light of evolution. The debate isn't so much about the terms as it's about the symbolism: evolution symbolizes a usurping of the Creator. This symbolism is false, but it's wired into evangelical Christian thought; the result, then, is a jettisoning of science out of fear of jeopardizing faith. The debate, I believe, is really about special creationist theism and evolutionary naturalism. Creationists are those who believe that God the cosmos is a creation of God (without necessarily becoming dogmatic about the methods He used), and naturalistic evolutionists are those who argue that evolution has explained creation and thus a creating God is unnecessary. Thus the debate isn't so much about terms but worldviews. The doctrine of creation isn't about how God did it but that He did it, and the doctrine of creation speaks to God's relationship with His creation (over it and yet involved in it) rather than His methods within it. We must set aside the popular misunderstanding that the doctrine of creation necessarily entails special creation. We must set aside the popular misunderstanding that evolution necessarily entails a naturalistic worldview.
I personally find several problems with the Young Earth position. Its arguments aren't convincing, and I find it laughable that God made things appear old (like starlight or rocks), Young Earth scientists have to find a way to explain away all the evidence for an old earth, and so they embrace "fictitious history": it gives all the signs and appearances of being old because God made it look that way even though it isn't old. It should be unsettling that a major branch of this position is focused on telling us why the earth is lying to us. Although Young Earth creationism makes a good point in highlighting the naturalistic worldview under-girding western science, they throw out the baby with the bathwater when they declare that, therefore, we should accept their findings with a dose of suspicion.
I don't believe nature lies, and I don't believe scripture lies. We can misinterpret both, and history (as well as our own lives) is filled with such misinterpretations. If scripture is true, it should not only be reconcilable with the natural world but in harmony with the natural world. Many Christian scientists have found such peaceful harmonization, but it isn't to be found in the Young Earth camp. The most damning thing I can say about the Young Earth group is that not only do they misinterpret nature, they misinterpret scripture. That's a bold move, but here me out: the biblical creation narratives are written in a Near Eastern rather than a Western fashion, and they are both polemical and apologetic (attacking pagan gods and praising YHWH). The creation texts aren't trying to tell us HOW God did what He did but WHO did it and WHY He did it.
What view do I hold to? I'm somewhere between old earth creationism and theistic evolution. I haven't given it considerable thought (this is one of those subjects within theology that I shrug my shoulders at), but I do know that the earth seems to be telling us that it's very old, and I know that evolution is currently a working theory regarding the diversification of species through adaptation and natural selection. I say "currently" because there are significant problems with it, and it's been said that evolution's glaring problems are the back-door joking of many biologists. It's the best theory we have right now, and it explains a lot, so we're running with it. I wouldn't be surprised if within the next century another theory supplants evolution. It's also worth noting that evolution doesn't necessarily speak to the origin of life; this field of science is pretty much a black hole, and it's why many scientists in this field have been persuaded that something lies beyond the veil. Natural processes simply cannot account for the origin of life in earth's early atmosphere, and the mechanism of evolution (random mutations, et. al.) seems to me to be capable of developing complexity only if there's a Guiding Hand behind it. The chances that random mutations absent purpose have resulted in sentient beings aware of their world are negligible, to say the least.
No comments:
Post a Comment