Theistic Evolution - or how to harmonize between Faith and Science 1
This is an attempt to show that Faith and Science, despite popular belief do not cancel each other out or necessarily oppose each other. by Henric C. Jensen
(liberal)
Thursday, January 22, 2009
I am a Theistic Evolutionist, an Evolutionary Creationist. This means that I make one assumption, which is squarely planted in Faith as a matter that cannot be scientifically proved - G-d exists. Other than that, I accept the Evolutionary Account of the Origins of the Universe and everything in it. I am not a scientist. I am theologian with an interest in science, and especially in reconciling Science with Faith. Hopefully I will do so without making the mistakes I think many people of Faith have made, and in such a manner that it becomes clear that there really is no conflict between Faith and Science.
The proponents of Intelligent Design (and other forms of Literal Creationism) make some rather glaring mistakes that are not related to the scientific process of Creation. Their first mistake is to assume the existence of G-d as a FACT. They cannot prove G-d's existence. It does not matter how many more or less incredible theories (such as "irreducible complexity"), they come up with to insert G-d as a fact, His existence cannot be proved.
They, in various ways, claim that the reason they are Creationists is the text written in Genesis/Bereshit chapters 1 and 2 and their claim that this is the Absolute Word of G-d. That is their second mistake, especially on the part of the ID believers. There is not one word in Genesis/Bereshit about any of the ideas expressed by their theories. Not one. In order to arrive at their conclusions they have to go beyond Genesis/Bereshit, and that places them squarely outside the realm of the Biblical account. They are Intelligent Designists, not Creationists. To be a true Creationist, you have to accept the Biblical account as is without any additions to the basic Text. Intelligent Design removes an element from the Biblical account that not only needs to be in there, but also is imperative to the entire text - the element of Faith, of awe, of humility, of understanding one's place in the Universe and the Who behind it all.
"Creationists sometimes argue that the idea of evolution must remain hypothetical because "no one has ever seen evolution occur."
This statement, quoted in the book "Science, Evolution, and Creationism" (page 39), is ludicrous. By the Intelligent Designists' own admission then, the idea of Creation must remain hypothetical because no one has ever seen creation occur. One has to wonder why they work so hard at claiming the truth of something when it is, by their own logic, clear that it must remain hypothetical. That is their third mistake, and in my opinion, the most grievous one, intellectual dishonesty. You simply cannot make statements like "evolution must remain hypothetical because no one has ever seen evolution occur." and at the same time claim that Intelligent Design is factual and scientific and expect people to accept this, not unless you are 4.5 billion years old!
The Biblical account of how everything came into being does not say one single word about HOW. It only says: "Everything came into being and G-d did it". Period. No additions, no "intelligent theories". The fourth mistake ID believers make is to assume that the Biblical account needs to be "harmonized" with Science to be considered true. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Millions of G-dly, honest and ethical people from all over the world have absolutely no trouble considering the Biblical account true without the "help of Intelligent Design". In fact, we would rather that Intelligent Design went away and stopped embarrassing decent, G-dfearing folk! The simple fact of the matter is that we have no need for Intelligent Design. The Theory of Evolution and the Biblical account already provide us with a viable Theory of Intelligent Design, and one that is far better at harmonizing the idea of G-d as the Creator with scientific evidence and method.
I will use a "from Scripture to Science" method, i.e. adapting Scripture to Science, rather than the other way around, to show why no harmonizing is necessary. I use this method because it is more honest to let the faith-based generalities of the Biblical text point to the scientific particularities of the Evolutionary account, i.e. fit that which cannot be proved to that which can be proved.
In order to harmonize the Biblical Creation account with existing Scientific Evolutionary facts, we have to understand the Biblical text and how it works. It is fine to just see the Biblical Creation account as an allegory that gives the basic answers to the questions of Whom and Why and stop there. This assumes of course that one wants to have such answers, this is not necessary; one is perfectly fine without those answers. However, I do not think it is necessary to stop at a mere allegory.
I think that if we look at the actual text of Genesis/Bereshit chapters 1 and 2, and are willing to read beyond what tradition teaches, but still within the plain text, we will see that there is, within the very text, support for a pure scientific understanding of "How it All Came Into Being".
"In the beginning G-d created the heaven and the earth." (Genesis/Bereshit 1:1)
Apart from the fact that it works like a headline in a newspaper article, simply summarizing the contents of what is to follow, this verse is interesting. In English and most other languages is just says: "In the beginning G-d created the heaven and the earth." In Hebrew, the original language of Torah, there is a textual element that implies that the author was aware that Creation is an ongoing process, and not something that is finished and this was what he intended to convey. It actually says: "In the beginning of G-d's creating heavens and earth."
This verse makes two statements:
1. It all began somewhere in reality, timed or timeless. This has been established by Science. The Universe is not without beginning. Bereshit 1:1 concurs with Science on this point. The existence of a Universal Beginning can be scientifically observed and verified. 2. G-d did it. This is a statement of pure Faith. This cannot be verified by Science, it can only be believed through Faith. We might be able to deduce from findings within Science, that the idea of G-d as Creator is viable if we place G-d outside Time and Space.
"Actually, the latest understanding of the origin of the universe indicates that prior to the Big Bang, time itself did not exist. Without the existence of space produced by the Big Bang, time had no meaning. And without time, references in space have no meaning. So in a sense, the theological idea that God as Creator exists outside space and time makes perfect sense." (Dale Husband)
This, however, would be by deduction only. We cannot establish that G-d actually did it. For all we can know, from a perspective of Science, G-d might as well be non-existent. At most, G-d could be a non-active witness to a random event that took place 13.7 billion years ago without divine intervention or participation.
"And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters." Genesis/Bereshit 1:2
This verse makes another two statements: 1. At one time, most likely just prior to the random event which science tells us took place 13.7 billion years ago, matter/mass had no form, it was free-floating outside space and time. This can be verified through scientific observations. Genesis/Bereshit 1:2 concurs with Science. Contrary to what popular theology, Xian as well as Jewish, teaches, this verse in combination with the first one, makes very clear that G-d did not create "ex nihilo" (out of nothing). G-d had access to matter/mass. Something was present from which He created.
"In 1952, George Gamow, one of the founding fathers of Big Bang cosmology, proposed that the period before the Big Bang be called the Augustinian era, after the philosopher Saint Augustine, who believed time was solely a property of the God-created Universe. Even though one could philosophically argue over the meaning of the phrase "to create", through the theory of general relativity space and time can be related to each other. The phrase "Augustinian Era" stands as a testament to the fact that the known laws of physics break down in a gravitational singularity of a geometric point at the time zero of the Big Bang and that, before then, time as we know it is meaningless."(FromWikipedia)
So far our Biblical account confirms what Science says.
2. G-d was present prior to a Random Event that Science tells us took place 13.7 billion years ago. This cannot be verified scientifically, it therefore must remain a matter of Faith.
I am amazed by this single seeming fact: Faith and Fact seem to be proposed by the Biblical account through its descriptive statements, which can be verified by Science, and its statements about a Creator, which can only be "verified" through Faith. It is as if the Biblical account wants us to accept both in conjunction. I just marvel at those who refuse to realize that if one accepts through Faith that G-d exists, one must also accept that Faith is meaningless without sound Reason/Science. Faith cannot be proved. Similarly, Reason cannot be believed. There is a "No-man's-land" between Faith and Reason that we have to cross. It can only be traversed through a leap of Faith, in both directions, and the border crossing is guarded by Logic.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 11
thumbs so far
The views expressed
in this article are those of Henric C. Jensen only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
Henric C. Jensen is solely responsible for the contents
of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated
with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Posted By: Walt Thiessen
Date: 2009-01-22 08:29:26
From an educational perspective, I'm not sure it really matters whether God's existence can be proven, because such proof depends upon what you believe God is or is not. The more important point, as I see it, is that Intelligent Design is a matter of faith, whereas Evolution is a matter of science.
Having said that, it's also noteworthy that the reason that the Creationism/Evolution debate exists is because both sides want to force public school students to study or to not study a particular subject. To me, this fact (about coercion) is an indictment of public schooling much more than it is an indictment of science or faith. Remove coercion from schools and the debate will go away.
@ trd: Nothing wrong with the letter "o" at all. I hyphenate G-d for religious reasons. It is a Jewish thing :-D. To avoid the risk of possibly erasing/defacing the Name should anyone wish to print out what I have written and later discard the print-out.
It is true that it matters not whether G-d's existence can or cannot be proven - in my opinion this is true from any perspective. However, if one wants to find a middle road, point to a middle road or find a resolution to what is claimed to be a conflict, it becomes necessary to define the parameters present on both sides. G-d's existence as an element of belief is one such parameter on the side of Intelligent Design, and according to "them" the ultimate reason they hold their position. I have to accept this and deal with it as a reality, even if I in the end will say that G-d's existence cannot be proven.
The point of my article is to show that, contrary to what ID believers claim, one does not have to be exclusive in one's thinking if belief in G-d is what one chooses.
I was lucky enough to have a biology teacher who was also a devoted Evangelical Xian, and he taught Evolution as a matter of fact and then had us read various Creation Myths, including the Biblical one, teaching us that Science is fact and Bible is faith and let us compare the various myths to each other and Evolution. But never did he try to convince us to believe as he did - that G-d did it.
Perhaps what American schools need is not a prohition against sharing one's point of view, but a better education for teachers on the matter of the difference between faith and fact and respect for the spiritual integrity of their students?
"Other than that, I accept the Evolutionary Account of the Origins of the Universe and everything in it."
Please, please, please - do not intermingle evolutionary theory with the beginning of the universe. These are two very different topics. "Evolution" refers to the origin of earthbound living species. It does not speak to first life on earth - abiogenesis - nor time and occurances on earth or the universe before that.
Horrible. Are you also a theistic gravityist? Please do not attach the disgusting adjective "theistic" to my favorite branch of science. The facts of evolutionary biology don't need any of your childish religious ideas. Your magic god fairy did not invent, use, or guide evolution. It's just science. Please keep your medieval religious beliefs out of it.
"Perhaps what American schools need is not a prohibition against sharing one's point of view, but a better education for teachers on the matter of the difference between faith and fact and respect for the spiritual integrity of their students?"
American public school teachers don't talk about "faith" because that would violate the Establishment Clause of our constitution. Also, it would be a complete waste of time to talk about faith, spiritual integrity, and other medieval nonsense. This is the 21st century, not the Dark Ages.
The author is willing to say that the existence of God is not a fact. He is clearly a man of faith with doubt. Faith with doubt makes it easier to harmonize science and faith to one\'s own satisfaction, than it would be for a religious fundamentalist who takes the existence of God as a fact.
A religious fundamentalist doesn\'t have or even need proof of God\'s existence. He takes God\'s existence as axiomatic, the self-evident basis of his belief system--even if creationism and Intelligent Design didn\'t exist. (In a similar vein, the U.S. Declaration of Independence takes as axiomatic the notion that all men are endowed by their Creator with unalienable rights. There is no "proof" of that either--but it\'s the basis of the belief system that led to American independence and its Constitution.)
Each person has to decide for himself what axioms underlie his philosophy, so I don\'t see how the author can claim that the assumption of God\'s existence is an "error" due to lack of proof.
Plus, the author has totally avoided the issue of Adam and Eve and their Fall from Grace, which is the main contradiction between Genesis and Darwin. Humans arose by evolution from lower forms of life. They didn\'t exist in some eternal quasi-angelic state until they Fell from Grace. And that is the main conundrum for many Protestant fundamentalists, since the Fall is central to their thinking about Original Sin, and so is the part played by Jesus as the atonement for Original Sin. In their theology, the Fall and Jesus are linked.
bobxxxx writes: "American public school teachers don't talk about 'faith' because that would violate the Establishment Clause of our constitution."
That, sir, is ridiculous.
The Establishment clause prohibits American public school teachers from advocating any religion to their students. It doesn't prohibit discussing religion. And if a teacher is prohibited from talking about religion or any other topic, that could be considered a violation of the First Amendment right of freedom of speech. It would also mean that a social studies teacher couldn't talk about Islamic extremism in the weeks after 9-11; or a history teacher couldn't discuss Greek or Roman mythology.
The author was indeed lucky to have a Christian teacher who could talk about the various creation myths without necessarily being an advocate for any one.
I've enjoyed your defense of theistic evolution, a traditional alternative that seems to have gotten lost in the noisy shuffle, and I thought you might enjoy reading mine:
Intelligent Design Rules Out God’s Sovereignty Over Chance
“What proponents of so-called intelligent design have cynically omitted in their polemic is that according to Biblical tradition, chance has always been considered God's choice as well.”
"The author is willing to say that the existence of God is not a fact. He is clearly a man of faith with doubt. Faith with doubt makes it easier to harmonize science and faith to one\'s own satisfaction, than it would be for a religious fundamentalist who takes the existence of God as a fact."
Interesting conclusion.
I don't think I have ever beeen accused of doubting the existence of G-d. But that is beside the point, is it not?
"Each person has to decide for himself what axioms underlie his philosophy, so I don\'t see how the author can claim that the assumption of God\'s existence is an "error" due to lack of proof."
If one is to refute the Intelligent Designists on religio-philosophical grounds rather than scientific grounds one has to look at what is the basis for their beliefs - and if one peels away all their pseudo-scientific arguments, a literal belief in the existence of G-d and the absoluteness of the Biblical account as fact, emerges very clearly. In that context the assumption that G-d exists must be met by the only truly accurate statement that can be made about the existence of G-d - we do not know, we cannot know, exactly because G-d's existence cannot be proven (or disproven). In that perspective any claim that G-d's existence is a fact is an error of thought, but perhaps not of faith :D.
Or to put it simply - just because someone says something is true or self-evident doesn't make it so.
Clearly the English did not take "as axiomatic the notion that all men are endowed by their Creator with unalienable rights." or they would not have had any problems with the complaints of the Americans or the American Revolution. So what is axiomatic to one can very well be highly questionable to another and an error in logic.
Well, it's nice to see Henric Jensen (aka Silly Old Bear) invade another forum to annoy right-wingers. I have known Henric for several years. I met him in the web community Care2. His biggest concerns are Israel/Palestine issues, anti-Semitism, and other forms of prejudice. So I was surprized to see that his first essay here was about evolution, but he and I have dealt with that a lot too. With him around, this place just got a lot more interesting!
Posted By: Herman Cummings
Date: 2009-01-22 21:45:49
Dear Henric Jensen:
The Bible, specifically Genesis, does not need you to make excuses for it. What you have done is to advance the cause of the adversary.
There is only one Genesis expert walking on the surface of the planet, and the rest speak from ignorance of the Genesis text. There are no “creation accounts” in Genesis. The “first day” in chapter one is not the First Day of Creation Week. There can be no compromise with scripture, but there is an overload of misunderstanding.
First off, you reveal that you are a theistic evolutionist. Right away, you are telling us that you are calling God a liar, and that His written Word is not true. In Exodus 20:11, God says that He created this universe, and everything in it in six (24-hr) days.
I suppose that you will come up with the line that “God’s days are not mankind’s days”. Well, if you say that, you again prove your ignorance. When God told Joshua to march around Jericho once for six days, did God mean something other than a 144-hour period of time? When God told Noah that it would rain for 40 days, did God mean something other than 960 hours? If so, Joshua should still be marching around those walls, and it should still have been raining non-stop since 2611 BC!!
Your problem, and that of others, is that you do not understand the Genesis text. It is to be accepted as literal truth. But not as the foolish “young Earth” creationists try to teach. Genesis does not support a 10,000-year-old Earth. The gap theorists, ruin & restorationists, and progressive creationists are all in serious error. When the blind lead the blind, they both fall in the ditch.
Yes, the Earth and universe are 4.6 billion years old, as determined by the geologist. The geologist is the only one that can make that call. Genesis does not say when, but it does tell us that the Moon was made during the same week as the Earth. If the Moon is 4.6 billion years old, then the entire universe is 4.6 billion years old.
I’ll close by saying that you should get your facts straight, and learn the truth before preaching to others. The truth of Genesis is available to those who want to hear it.
Herman Cummings
Ephraim7@aol.com
Nice to see you too, Dale :-D. Evolution and Faith is a fairly "safe" subject compared to the issue of Israel/Palestine or anti-Semitism. No need to go in guns blazing with the really hot topics just yet :-)
It seems I managed to annoy at least one other writer here by putting "Evolution" and "Theistic" in the same article, I don't know if that is a good or bad sign:-D
Herman Cummings: You are of course entitled to your opinion, as I am to mine - as that is all either of us have - opinion. Belief. That's it. Over and Out.
Right away, you are telling us that you are calling God a liar, and that His written Word is not true.
This is based on the two unfounded assumptions that the Bible is the Word of God and that God lying is somehow a problem. Since I take no stock in assumptions without a shred of evidence, I will simply dismiss your claims, Herman Cummings.
There is only one Genesis expert walking on the surface of the planet, and the rest speak from ignorance of the Genesis text. There are no “creation accounts” in Genesis. The “first day” in chapter one is not the First Day of Creation Week.
Huh? What incoherence!
[The Genesis text] is to be accepted as literal truth. But not as the foolish “young Earth” creationists try to teach. Genesis does not support a 10,000-year-old Earth.
So you are an "old-Earth" Creationist?
Yes, the Earth and universe are 4.6 billion years old, as determined by the geologist. The geologist is the only one that can make that call. Genesis does not say when, but it does tell us that the Moon was made during the same week as the Earth. If the Moon is 4.6 billion years old, then the entire universe is 4.6 billion years old.
So you accept the evidence that the moon is 4.6 billion years old, but not the evidence that the universe is 13 billion years old. Such inconsistency is no better than being a theistic evolutionist.
"Such inconsistency is no better than being a theistic evolutionist."
Excuse me, sir? This Theistic Evolutionist completely accepts evolution as scientific fact and hold G-d\'s existence as a personal matter of faith - now, what exactly is wrong with that, that it may be equaled to the incoherent inconsistency displayed in the piece opf writing you addressed?
I've seen faith healers on TV cast out demons, but I wouldn't go to one to fix a broken arm. But I did pray with a medical doctor before my wife's surgery. I think it helped speed her recovery, even though I have no scientific proof of that. Perhaps it was the chocolates I brought her while she was in the hospital bed. I wanted all my bases covered!
God gave us five senses and a brain in which to explore the universe. I look at scientific discoveries as a way to reveal His handiwork. Stephen Hawking's revelations about black hole radiation don't threaten, but enlighten me.
The problem with intelligent design is that it takes our human experience and imprints it onto our concept of an omnipotent god. What if this god is lazy, and what we see is his best work? Could there have been a better existence and it chose not to do it? That's like a fly trying to understand the motivations of the flyswatter, and never knowing about the hand behind it. The lack of a reference for falsification makes the analysis irrelevant.
Jake: I took a gander. I'll pass on commenting. Too many buzz-words, loaded metaphors and exaggerated comparisons for me to be interested in debating.
Get rid of that and I will join the discussion.
I am not an expert on Israel/Palestine - considering the complexity of the issue, I doubt anyone really is - there are simply too many elements for any one person to keep track of.
Posted By: Dr. Arv Edgeworth
Date: 2009-01-23 08:51:07
Do we see any creatures clearly in transition today? No. If there were, would that be proof that it happened in the past? No. Are there any clear transitional fossils proving it did happen in the past? No.
Is an explosion from nothing scientific? No. Is abiogenesis scientific? No. Are almost all mutations harmful? Yes. Does natural selection almost always prevent change? Yes.
And to imagine that our ability to think, see, hear, smell, our blood-clotting system, respiratory system, nervous system, etc. are all the results of random chance mutations that did not have us in mind. Wow! I forget, what exactly are the percentages of that all happening by chance?
If the DNA from one human being were beamed in from outer space, the scientists at SETI would go nuts. Why, that would be absolute proof there is intelligence out there. Maybe it might be better proof there is not a lot of intelligence on this planet.
Bob N: "God gave us five senses and a brain in which to explore the universe. I look at scientific discoveries as a way to reveal His handiwork. Stephen Hawking's revelations about black hole radiation don't threaten, but enlighten me.
The problem with intelligent design is that it takes our human experience and imprints it onto our concept of an omnipotent god."
Dr. Arv Edgeworth, is your doctorate in Fallacious Bogusity? It sure looks like it. I can assure you and everyone else here that your statements about evolution are ALL either falsehoods or irrelevant to the actual issue of whether theistic evolution is a valid concept!
Dale Husband: "...irrelevant to the actual issue of whether theistic evolution is a valid concept!"
Not entirely irrelevant, as Dr Edgeworth's words, despite their obvious sarcasm, actually illustrates quite well the thought process behind the theistic part of theistic evolution. What it is that makes one come to the theistic conclusion.
One the one hand we do have the scientific account of events, which is beautiful and aweinspiring in itself. A quite acceptable explanation to the how, when and where of the Universe and what's in it. But be cause I am also a man of some mystic qualities, I wonder about the who and why. The meaning behind it. The scientific account cannot provide that. The theistic account, to my mind, can. As long as we remember that the theistic account is based in faith and an ontological need for a meaning behind the existence of the Universe, the theistic evolution as a concept is quite valid - perhaps not from a scientific point of view, but certainly from a philosophical perspective. Which is all I ever aimed at proposing with my article.
I have done some thinking on this subject as well. As a Christian, i think that it is an utter shame that we often have told our high school aged students that they need to oppose science because it ultimately leads to atheism. What a false dichotomy! If God created then evolution is false......enough already! By the time these students get into their freshman year of college and find out that the evidence is quite overwhelming and that evolution is not only reasonable, but the basic concensus of those who spend their whole lives studying biology; they think that the faith they grew up with was a myth. Many have walked away from their Christian faith because of a false polarity the church continues to propegate....very sad.
Take note that no one understood my earlier post, nor took the time to ask questions. Accepting literal interpretation does not mean believing in foolishness, but believing that what is written is true, with the faith that understanding will later be given, if not given immediately.
Genesis is literally true…, all of it. It is the foolishness, false doctrines, and misrepresentations of Creationism and Theology (for hundreds of years) that are at fault. There is no "biblical truth by faith" and a different scientific reality by evidence. If mankind would take the time to listen to the correct rendition of Genesis, namely the Observations of Moses, there would be no conflict (nor confusion) between what is written in Genesis, and what modern science has discovered. Genesis is a book of advanced math and science, and not a "book of faith". It’s time to have a "Mt. Carmel" experience, and expose all of the false teachings of current creationism.
Want to comment on
this article? Leave your comment
here. Your email address is required to track your
comment. However, we will neither publish your email
address nor distribute it to other organizations or
persons. The only reason we might use it would be if
we needed to contact you regarding your comment. All
comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
