Ask Christians about Newton’s law of gravity or Alexander Fleming’s discovery of penicillin, or Albert Einstein’s theory of relativity and there is nothing but general admiration for brilliant men whose science has created a better world. But mention Charles Darwin (1809-1882), and his theory of evolution by natural selection the reaction ranges from outright hostility to sincere admiration. And many Christians are not sure where they belong on that spectrum. They are not sure whether they think Darwin was a blessing or a curse.
Part of the problem involves some muddled definitions.
Some see evolution as being synonymous with a ‘scientific’ way of looking at the origins of the universe which denies God. It is shorthand for atheism’s mistress, so of course Darwinism is a curse. This is incorrect because Darwin had nothing to say about the origin of the universe or the beginning of life on planet earth. Though an agnostic, he always treated his many Christian friends, and his own wife who was a sincere believer, with the utmost respect and never denied the possibility of there being a divine role. Indeed he wrote to a close friend, ‘“I cannot look at the Universe as the result of blind chance…’[1] Another muddle is because Darwin emphasized ‘natural selection’ as the engine of evolution, his theory is seen as responsible for ‘social Darwinism’ and eugenics, a way to improve the fitness of the human race, which was practised notoriously by Hitler starting with the extermination of all imbeciles in Germany in 1939. Though Darwin’s cousin Sir Francis Galton is considered the father of eugenics, Charles Darwin himself never endorsed the ideas. In correspondence with his cousin he agreed that helping the weak could harm natural selection, but added that to do so would be to harm the instinct of sympathy, ‘the noblest part of our nature.’[2] If Darwinism is seen as being the same as Social Darwinism then it is swiftly seen as a curse – but while there is intellectual overlap, it is not correct to equate the two. A final muddle works the other way. As Darwin is famous for spotting that the beaks of finches adapted to their environment, it can be wrongly assumed he was mainly arguing for micro-evolution, small changes within established species. And as this idea remains well within the Christian understanding that science should reveal more about how God works, such a definition leads to people superficially concluding Darwinism is a blessing.
However Charles Darwin was arguing for much more than micro-evolution; he was arguing for macro-evolution on a grand scale whereby all the diversity of living species evolve from a common ancestor through a process of natural selection over a very long period of time. This theory was worked out in detail in his book ‘On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life’ published in 1859. He later spelt out what was implicit in this theory for the origin of man, namely that the human race evolved from animals, in another best-selling title, ‘The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex’’, published in 1871.
In this 150th year anniversary of the publication of the ‘Origin of Species’ it is generally true to say that Christians are still unsure how to assess the theory, to decide whether it is a blessing or a curse. This is despite the fact that over the years more evidence has been discovered to support Darwin’s theory, so much so that the vast majority of scientists working in fields directly related to evolution such as molecular biology regard it as much as a fact as Newton’s law of gravity. There are libraries full of their research, suffice to mention in this limited space that crucial to Darwin’s theory was the need for huge amounts of geological time and now it has been proved that the earth is about four billion years old. And further discoveries of fossils in the earth have tended to confirm the overall thesis that simpler life came first followed by more complex forms, there are also claims of fossils that represent transitional life forms. Research on vestigial features such as whales legs or human tails have also supported evolution in that it shows these were inherited. Most importantly of all there have been great advances in genetics since Darwin’s day – and all the findings have confirmed his theory. In line with Darwin’s predictions researchers discovered a universal genetic code in the 1960’s proving the unity of all living organisms. Closely linked to this was the study of the sequencing of the amino acids in proteins which are produced by the genes. It has been proved that the sequencing is inherited, and crucially that even redundant features are passed on, so pointing to common ancestry[3].
While the scientific community constantly and loudly support Darwin his theory still provokes unease among many Christians as it clearly contradicts the creation account in the Bible with its insistence that God created the species separately, including man. These Christians generally fall into two camps. There are those, often serious scientists themselves, who accept evolution and believe it can be accommodated to the Genesis account which they would emphasize was never written as a factual record of how the world began, and indeed would quote from church authorities such as Origen and Augustine in their support[4]. So throughout the evolutionary process God was at work, controlling and sustaining the outcome, and specifically stepping in during the process when humans evolved, to put his mark on man. In short, God is still the creator, but He used evolution. Pushed into a corner they would declare that Darwin was a great scientist, and his discoveries have proved to be a blessing in many fields, especially genetics.
There are many other Christians though who disagree with Darwin (and many Muslims too). While some are scientists who dispute the theory academically and have in recent years proposed ‘Intelligent Design’, the main root cause of the opposition, both for these scientists and the layman, is theological. There are three areas of major disagreement, all of them crucial to the Christian world-view.
The first is the witness of creation. The Bible constantly declares that ‘the heavens declare the glory of God’ (Psalm 19:1), and so no man will have any excuse on the day of judgement: ‘For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse’ Romans 1:20. Christian evolutionists would say there is nothing in the theory that denies this, but it is not quite so simple, for evolution denies God’s hand in the actual design of creatures and plants. God’s part was just choosing the process of evolution, which non Christians would say does not need God anyway, so all the immediate glory goes to evolution, not God. Certainly there is room for debate here, but for many Christians evolution blunts the witness of creation. Before Darwin the church was always able to point to the nearest flower as evidence of God: since 1859, rightly or wrongly, many say, ‘lovely flower, but it evolved, nothing to do with God’.
The second is the authority of Scripture. God creating the different species,
‘ according to their kinds’ is not just taught clearly in Genesis 1, but also in the Psalms and Job and this understanding certainly underpins the New Testament. God is the creator and sustainer of all. Christian evolutionists would argue that the writers of the Bible had a world view that has long since been disproved, for example Bible writers thought that heaven was literally above the clouds. So the wisest approach would be to let the Bible teach how we relate to God, and let science explain our world. So the Genesis account is not literal fact, and there is no need to see God as commanding different species into being. It is enough to see Him as the ultimate hand behind it all. Many are not convinced by this approach, asking the question – if the Bible cannot be trusted on such a crucial issue as creation, why should it be trusted on any other matter?
A final and most difficult area for the Christian evolutionist concerns the nature of man and salvation. Orthodox Christian teaching is that a historical man, Adam, was specially made in the image of God (Gen 1:26), thus giving him unique value and had the potential to live forever if he had chosen the tree of life. Instead he and his wife introduced sin and so death into the world, thus making necessary historical redemption brought about by Jesus Christ on the cross. Evolution differs with this account at every point. There is no special creation of a first human couple, but a number of primates emerging into humans; these humans have no special intrinsic value in their own right; and there is no introduction of death into the world because of sin as death had been at work for billions of years. For many Christians this radically undermines the scheme of salvation in Christianity as set out for example in Romans 5 or 1 Corinthians 15. Christ comes to save man bearing God’s mark from sin and death introduced by Adam….but in evolution there is no God’s mark, no Adam, and death was always around. In reply the Christian evolutionist would postulate that at a certain stage in the evolutionary process, just as man was evolving from the chimpanzees, probably in Africa (not Mesopotamia as in Genesis) God intervened and put his mark on the new creature, along with a soul, and the ability to make moral choices which he then disregarded, so necessitating Christ’s redemption. Even though this might for some be a sensible enough explanation to marry evolution and the doctrine of man made in the image of God, it still leaves the issue of death before sin unresolved.
If these Christians were pushed into a corner to give a verdict on Darwin they would not use the word curse, but most would say he has blunted the blessings of Christianity. He has blunted the witness of creation; blunted the authority of Scripture; and blunted the doctrine of the historical fall and salvation in the cross of Christ.
And in reply to that both the non Christian and Christian evolutionist could rightly ask – but how can scientific truth blunt theological truth? How can you believe in the Genesis account, when all the scientific evidence points away from it? There are two responses to this fair challenge. The first is to deny the science, and so for every piece of evidence for evolution, you will find Christians, often known as creationists[5], refuting it, point by point. The problem with this response is that relatively few exceptionally well qualified scientists have pinned their colours to the anti Darwin mast. This suggests that creationists are finding it hard to have their science taken seriously by their colleagues. This leaves Christians with a bit of a conundrum. Most serious scientists believe in evolution but they have deep unease about jettisoning what for them – not all Christians – is the plain meaning of the Bible.
This is where the second response is perhaps more helpful. It is to acknowledge that the Christian faith is full of conundrums and contradictions. As well as evolution and creation, at only 150 years old a relatively new problem, we have the divinity and humanity of Christ; predestination and free will; eternal punishment and eternal extinction; God’s love for all in the Gospel, yet the vast swathes of humanity who never heard the Gospel: the list is endless. Into these disputes harsh voices can arise demanding we make a decision for one side or another. But a wiser voice says with the Apostle Paul, ‘now we see through the mirror dimly’ (1 Corinthians 13: 12). For we do not know exactly what happened at the start of time, but a Christian knows that he has had such a profound revelation of Jesus Christ in their own hearts that they are prepared to believe the teachings of the faith in regards to the witness of creation, the authority of Scripture, and the image of God in man, his fall, and salvation, and happily acknowledge that they do not understand why at this present moment in time serious scientists affirm macro-evolution. But just as the Christian does not understand other conundrums of the faith, this does not stop them from pressing on with what they do understand.
And one thing all Christians understand from their own spiritual journey is that on the central question of Jesus Christ, in contrast to most other questions, there can be no middle ground. One either moves towards the light, as for example Nicodemus did in John’s Gospel; or backwards into darkness, as Pilate or Judas did. There is no neutral territory: ultimately there is a blessing or a curse. This is the biblical dualism.
And it is here that Darwin as a man stands as a warning. His contemporaries record he was a courteous, kindly and generous man, very much the knowledgeable Victorian gentleman. But though he refuted atheism, he was an agnostic - despite an abundance of light. For he lived at a time when evangelical Christianity was strong in England dominated by outstanding preachers such as Charles Spurgeon and William Booth; he himself had studied some theology at Cambridge University; and his own wife was a devoted Christian. Yet he remained undecided over the great question of Jesus Christ. And here is the warning, for ultimately all men’s lives point in one direction or the other, however neutral they might claim to be. For the scientist working in his lab, no doubt Darwin’s life points to blessing. Ordinary people might not be so sure. For as seen his name and theory have been used to greatly bolster eugenics, founded by his own cousin, and put into practice by the Nazis. And to bolster Marx’s claim that ‘all history is the history of the class struggle’ which underpinned Communism and all its ensuing misery. What both these murderous ideologies have in common is a total disregard for human life, and though Darwin himself would have been aghast both Marx, the father of communism and Hitler drew these conclusions from his theory[6]. For in evolution the only man of value, is the strong one, in his own right he has no more intrinsic value than any other animal. And though he himself refuted atheism, nevertheless it is the enemies of the church such as Richard Dawkins in our own day, who use his material to claim there is ‘probably’ no God, so that millions naturally drawn to the creator they sense behind the snow drops, are halted in their journey. It is difficult to describe such an influence as a blessing and a salutary warning to all of the danger of staying neutral when it comes to Jesus Christ. Neutrality is not an option.
For as Darwin’s life at the grandest level shows: when you reject Jesus Christ as your friend, you end up being used by his enemies.
All Rights Reserved
T.G.S. Hawksley
Part of the problem involves some muddled definitions.
Some see evolution as being synonymous with a ‘scientific’ way of looking at the origins of the universe which denies God. It is shorthand for atheism’s mistress, so of course Darwinism is a curse. This is incorrect because Darwin had nothing to say about the origin of the universe or the beginning of life on planet earth. Though an agnostic, he always treated his many Christian friends, and his own wife who was a sincere believer, with the utmost respect and never denied the possibility of there being a divine role. Indeed he wrote to a close friend, ‘“I cannot look at the Universe as the result of blind chance…’[1] Another muddle is because Darwin emphasized ‘natural selection’ as the engine of evolution, his theory is seen as responsible for ‘social Darwinism’ and eugenics, a way to improve the fitness of the human race, which was practised notoriously by Hitler starting with the extermination of all imbeciles in Germany in 1939. Though Darwin’s cousin Sir Francis Galton is considered the father of eugenics, Charles Darwin himself never endorsed the ideas. In correspondence with his cousin he agreed that helping the weak could harm natural selection, but added that to do so would be to harm the instinct of sympathy, ‘the noblest part of our nature.’[2] If Darwinism is seen as being the same as Social Darwinism then it is swiftly seen as a curse – but while there is intellectual overlap, it is not correct to equate the two. A final muddle works the other way. As Darwin is famous for spotting that the beaks of finches adapted to their environment, it can be wrongly assumed he was mainly arguing for micro-evolution, small changes within established species. And as this idea remains well within the Christian understanding that science should reveal more about how God works, such a definition leads to people superficially concluding Darwinism is a blessing.
However Charles Darwin was arguing for much more than micro-evolution; he was arguing for macro-evolution on a grand scale whereby all the diversity of living species evolve from a common ancestor through a process of natural selection over a very long period of time. This theory was worked out in detail in his book ‘On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life’ published in 1859. He later spelt out what was implicit in this theory for the origin of man, namely that the human race evolved from animals, in another best-selling title, ‘The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex’’, published in 1871.
In this 150th year anniversary of the publication of the ‘Origin of Species’ it is generally true to say that Christians are still unsure how to assess the theory, to decide whether it is a blessing or a curse. This is despite the fact that over the years more evidence has been discovered to support Darwin’s theory, so much so that the vast majority of scientists working in fields directly related to evolution such as molecular biology regard it as much as a fact as Newton’s law of gravity. There are libraries full of their research, suffice to mention in this limited space that crucial to Darwin’s theory was the need for huge amounts of geological time and now it has been proved that the earth is about four billion years old. And further discoveries of fossils in the earth have tended to confirm the overall thesis that simpler life came first followed by more complex forms, there are also claims of fossils that represent transitional life forms. Research on vestigial features such as whales legs or human tails have also supported evolution in that it shows these were inherited. Most importantly of all there have been great advances in genetics since Darwin’s day – and all the findings have confirmed his theory. In line with Darwin’s predictions researchers discovered a universal genetic code in the 1960’s proving the unity of all living organisms. Closely linked to this was the study of the sequencing of the amino acids in proteins which are produced by the genes. It has been proved that the sequencing is inherited, and crucially that even redundant features are passed on, so pointing to common ancestry[3].
While the scientific community constantly and loudly support Darwin his theory still provokes unease among many Christians as it clearly contradicts the creation account in the Bible with its insistence that God created the species separately, including man. These Christians generally fall into two camps. There are those, often serious scientists themselves, who accept evolution and believe it can be accommodated to the Genesis account which they would emphasize was never written as a factual record of how the world began, and indeed would quote from church authorities such as Origen and Augustine in their support[4]. So throughout the evolutionary process God was at work, controlling and sustaining the outcome, and specifically stepping in during the process when humans evolved, to put his mark on man. In short, God is still the creator, but He used evolution. Pushed into a corner they would declare that Darwin was a great scientist, and his discoveries have proved to be a blessing in many fields, especially genetics.
There are many other Christians though who disagree with Darwin (and many Muslims too). While some are scientists who dispute the theory academically and have in recent years proposed ‘Intelligent Design’, the main root cause of the opposition, both for these scientists and the layman, is theological. There are three areas of major disagreement, all of them crucial to the Christian world-view.
The first is the witness of creation. The Bible constantly declares that ‘the heavens declare the glory of God’ (Psalm 19:1), and so no man will have any excuse on the day of judgement: ‘For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse’ Romans 1:20. Christian evolutionists would say there is nothing in the theory that denies this, but it is not quite so simple, for evolution denies God’s hand in the actual design of creatures and plants. God’s part was just choosing the process of evolution, which non Christians would say does not need God anyway, so all the immediate glory goes to evolution, not God. Certainly there is room for debate here, but for many Christians evolution blunts the witness of creation. Before Darwin the church was always able to point to the nearest flower as evidence of God: since 1859, rightly or wrongly, many say, ‘lovely flower, but it evolved, nothing to do with God’.
The second is the authority of Scripture. God creating the different species,
‘ according to their kinds’ is not just taught clearly in Genesis 1, but also in the Psalms and Job and this understanding certainly underpins the New Testament. God is the creator and sustainer of all. Christian evolutionists would argue that the writers of the Bible had a world view that has long since been disproved, for example Bible writers thought that heaven was literally above the clouds. So the wisest approach would be to let the Bible teach how we relate to God, and let science explain our world. So the Genesis account is not literal fact, and there is no need to see God as commanding different species into being. It is enough to see Him as the ultimate hand behind it all. Many are not convinced by this approach, asking the question – if the Bible cannot be trusted on such a crucial issue as creation, why should it be trusted on any other matter?
A final and most difficult area for the Christian evolutionist concerns the nature of man and salvation. Orthodox Christian teaching is that a historical man, Adam, was specially made in the image of God (Gen 1:26), thus giving him unique value and had the potential to live forever if he had chosen the tree of life. Instead he and his wife introduced sin and so death into the world, thus making necessary historical redemption brought about by Jesus Christ on the cross. Evolution differs with this account at every point. There is no special creation of a first human couple, but a number of primates emerging into humans; these humans have no special intrinsic value in their own right; and there is no introduction of death into the world because of sin as death had been at work for billions of years. For many Christians this radically undermines the scheme of salvation in Christianity as set out for example in Romans 5 or 1 Corinthians 15. Christ comes to save man bearing God’s mark from sin and death introduced by Adam….but in evolution there is no God’s mark, no Adam, and death was always around. In reply the Christian evolutionist would postulate that at a certain stage in the evolutionary process, just as man was evolving from the chimpanzees, probably in Africa (not Mesopotamia as in Genesis) God intervened and put his mark on the new creature, along with a soul, and the ability to make moral choices which he then disregarded, so necessitating Christ’s redemption. Even though this might for some be a sensible enough explanation to marry evolution and the doctrine of man made in the image of God, it still leaves the issue of death before sin unresolved.
If these Christians were pushed into a corner to give a verdict on Darwin they would not use the word curse, but most would say he has blunted the blessings of Christianity. He has blunted the witness of creation; blunted the authority of Scripture; and blunted the doctrine of the historical fall and salvation in the cross of Christ.
And in reply to that both the non Christian and Christian evolutionist could rightly ask – but how can scientific truth blunt theological truth? How can you believe in the Genesis account, when all the scientific evidence points away from it? There are two responses to this fair challenge. The first is to deny the science, and so for every piece of evidence for evolution, you will find Christians, often known as creationists[5], refuting it, point by point. The problem with this response is that relatively few exceptionally well qualified scientists have pinned their colours to the anti Darwin mast. This suggests that creationists are finding it hard to have their science taken seriously by their colleagues. This leaves Christians with a bit of a conundrum. Most serious scientists believe in evolution but they have deep unease about jettisoning what for them – not all Christians – is the plain meaning of the Bible.
This is where the second response is perhaps more helpful. It is to acknowledge that the Christian faith is full of conundrums and contradictions. As well as evolution and creation, at only 150 years old a relatively new problem, we have the divinity and humanity of Christ; predestination and free will; eternal punishment and eternal extinction; God’s love for all in the Gospel, yet the vast swathes of humanity who never heard the Gospel: the list is endless. Into these disputes harsh voices can arise demanding we make a decision for one side or another. But a wiser voice says with the Apostle Paul, ‘now we see through the mirror dimly’ (1 Corinthians 13: 12). For we do not know exactly what happened at the start of time, but a Christian knows that he has had such a profound revelation of Jesus Christ in their own hearts that they are prepared to believe the teachings of the faith in regards to the witness of creation, the authority of Scripture, and the image of God in man, his fall, and salvation, and happily acknowledge that they do not understand why at this present moment in time serious scientists affirm macro-evolution. But just as the Christian does not understand other conundrums of the faith, this does not stop them from pressing on with what they do understand.
And one thing all Christians understand from their own spiritual journey is that on the central question of Jesus Christ, in contrast to most other questions, there can be no middle ground. One either moves towards the light, as for example Nicodemus did in John’s Gospel; or backwards into darkness, as Pilate or Judas did. There is no neutral territory: ultimately there is a blessing or a curse. This is the biblical dualism.
And it is here that Darwin as a man stands as a warning. His contemporaries record he was a courteous, kindly and generous man, very much the knowledgeable Victorian gentleman. But though he refuted atheism, he was an agnostic - despite an abundance of light. For he lived at a time when evangelical Christianity was strong in England dominated by outstanding preachers such as Charles Spurgeon and William Booth; he himself had studied some theology at Cambridge University; and his own wife was a devoted Christian. Yet he remained undecided over the great question of Jesus Christ. And here is the warning, for ultimately all men’s lives point in one direction or the other, however neutral they might claim to be. For the scientist working in his lab, no doubt Darwin’s life points to blessing. Ordinary people might not be so sure. For as seen his name and theory have been used to greatly bolster eugenics, founded by his own cousin, and put into practice by the Nazis. And to bolster Marx’s claim that ‘all history is the history of the class struggle’ which underpinned Communism and all its ensuing misery. What both these murderous ideologies have in common is a total disregard for human life, and though Darwin himself would have been aghast both Marx, the father of communism and Hitler drew these conclusions from his theory[6]. For in evolution the only man of value, is the strong one, in his own right he has no more intrinsic value than any other animal. And though he himself refuted atheism, nevertheless it is the enemies of the church such as Richard Dawkins in our own day, who use his material to claim there is ‘probably’ no God, so that millions naturally drawn to the creator they sense behind the snow drops, are halted in their journey. It is difficult to describe such an influence as a blessing and a salutary warning to all of the danger of staying neutral when it comes to Jesus Christ. Neutrality is not an option.
For as Darwin’s life at the grandest level shows: when you reject Jesus Christ as your friend, you end up being used by his enemies.
All Rights Reserved
T.G.S. Hawksley
No comments:
Post a Comment