Evolution and the Armstrongist Retreat from Science

 

Homology in Evolution (Fair Use: Christian Brothers University)

Evolution and the Armstrongist Retreat from Science

By Scout

 

Evolution, as a mechanism, can be and must be true. But that says nothing about the nature of its author. For those who believe in God, there are reasons now to be more in awe, not less. – Francis Collins, M.D., Geneticist

We have heard it stated that there is no real conflict between science and the Bible, or between science and religion. But that is only because we have not fully realized just what evolution is…And evolution is the devil’s most powerful weapon.”                        – Herbert W. Armstrong, “Can a Sabbath Keeper Believe in Evolution?”, 1929.  

 There is some controversy about the meaning of the term “theistic evolution.”  The waters stirred by the debate are now murky enough that I should define what my viewpoint is for the purposes of this opinion piece.  I believe God used evolution as a strategy for advancing biological life on earth.  I also believe that evolution was guided to some degree rather than fully random.   I would not say that evolution is a tool used by God (although I have said that in the past).  God is not a demiurge who must use tools.  He is absolute and creates reality.  He calls things into existence from nothing.  Why this evolutionary strategy?  I don’t know.  So, you see my view of evolution is observational rather than philosophical, analytic rather than purpose-driven.  I believe there is purpose in all that God does.  I just don’t always (maybe seldom) know what it is. 

In this opinion piece, I will explain why I support theistic evolution of the sort I have just described above.  And in doing this, I will obliquely discuss the relationship between Christianity and Science.  And how some religions, like classical, pre-1995 Armstrongism, have gone to war against science.  

The Two Books

If you are a believer, you have probably noticed like I have that we have two sources of information about our reality.  There is Biblical revelation and empiricism.  Meaning and theory rest on these two piers.  Some theologians refer to these two sources of information as the Book of God’s Words and the Book of God’s Works, respectively.  I find this analysis suitable because I believe in God and science.  Why I believe in God is outside the scope of this writing.  What is critical to notice about this model is that the Two Books are never in contradiction because they are sourced ultimately from God.  Our interpretations of them may be out of sync but the Two Books are always inherently and essentially in sync.

What this means is that Christian theology and science are harmonious brothers and not adversaries.  Biblical literalists and atheists both promote the perception of division between the two members of this same family.  The literalists say that science is the King of Fools and the atheists accuse theology in the same way.  In general, it can be reasonably stated, if these two brothers are out of sync in your belief system and you have to engage in substantive denial of one or the other or both to support your interpretation of scripture, then you still have some work to do.  You’re not there yet. 

My assertion is that these two books are never in contradiction if reasonably interpreted.  But some will claim that they are discrepant. It is worthwhile to take the measure of such conflicts.  

The Reconciliation of the Two Books

The Bible is explicit in its assertion that God created the earth and its flora and fauna.  And the empirical evidence analyzed by science is just as conclusive that biological life underwent a gradual process of development through genetic variation and selection in a competitive environment. The question is, can these both be true at the same time.  And the answer is yes.  They must be or our Christian belief system will ultimately disintegrate under the force of contradiction. 

The scientific conclusions are the product of the application of the laws found in the scientific disciplines to physical, measurable processes – and the conclusions are repeatable and verifiable.  Scientific conclusions are the product of the Scientific Method.  Mistakes can be made, but eventually the truth will out.  Scientists are energetic about evaluating, criticizing and improving on one another’s work.  

The Biblical data is narrative rather than empirical and tends to be subject to many more interpretations. Description is sometimes spare and we are left to unpack vague concepts ourselves.  It clearly states in Genesis that God created Adam but it doesn’t say precisely how. The Book of God’s Words does not explicitly clarify if there was any gradual development of hominids involved in Adam’s creation. Though Genesis is clear that God made man but it does not unpack this statement, we do have the Book of God’s Works as an adjunct to the Biblical data.  The Book of God’s Works tells us that there was gradual development of hominids. God may have nevertheless created man suddenly by imparting to an already existing, evolution-produced, advanced homo sapiens the necessary sentience to understand spiritual concepts.  Then Adam suddenly bursts on the scene.  Some theologians refer to this new form of human, a new persona built on the same evolved somatic frame, as Homo divinus.

The Book of Words and the Book of Works are not in conflict unless the reader makes them so.  They, rather, have a synergistic relationship if you are careful about understanding what they say and do not purposely counterpose them against each other.  This synergy would lead us to the conclusion that God created Adam but used the engine of mutation and natural selection for the physical part of this process.  I do not personally believe that the mutations are all random.  I believe that evolution was guided by the hand of God.  I don’t think it was ever the case that sentient beings could have arisen from the reptilian line as randomness might have permitted for instance.

The question: Is there support for theistic evolution in the Bible?  The answer is that there is not.  Neither is there support for quantum mechanics.  Yet quantum mechanics is real.  Nor is the denial of either theistic evolution or quantum mechanics found in the Bible.  The support is not found within the pages of the Books but in the fact that the Books exist as complements to each other – that the whole, rational picture sometimes requires both Books.    Evolution does not attempt to posit a creator.  Evolution deals with physical data. The Bible does not go into scientific detail about how God created Adam.  The Bible is about theology.  

The upshot is that there are ways to reconcile the Genesis account with the findings of science.  The Two Books work together not against each other.  

The Armstrongist Rereat from Science

Armstrongism interprets Genesis to require the idea that God created Adam instantaneously and by fiat.  They are not alone in this.  This is also the view of some other denominations.  This requirement, however, is an interpretation and not a constraint of scripture.  It is natural for religious interpreters to assert a view that comports with their understanding of scripture and reject, if needed, the findings of science.   This is a high view of the Book of God’s Words and a low view of the Book of God’s Works.  That dog won’t hunt.  God authored both and both are critically important to understanding reality.  Otherwise, you end up believing the facetious idea that Adam co-existed with dinosaurs.

There are a number of ways that religious folk exalt their interpretation of the Bible over science. Among some religious opponents of evolution, the denial of science is often couched as a respect for the truth – belief in God transcending belief in man.  Some assert that their interpretation of the Biblical account has gravitas because it is literal and therefore judicious.  Armstrongism seems to throw a sop to literalism but is not purist about it.  For instance, Armstrongism has adopted a very non-literal interpretation of the Parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man, spoken by Jesus himself, in order to support the idea of Soul Sleep.  The truth will out, though through a glass darkly at this time, when both of the Two Books are carefully considered. 

The Last Analysis

This is a large topic and has been extensively addressed in publications.  But there are a few summary points that stand out in the tension between Armstrongism and science.  Without a doubt, if one adopts theistic evolution, one’s interpretation of the Bible will change.  The creation of Adam, flora and fauna will be seen to have a history of gradualism.  Perhaps, the creation in Genesis is speaking of a change in the persona of man rather than the traditional sudden creation of both persona and soma.  Such a watershed change in persona only is still just as much a divine intervention and miraculous act of creation as any other origin idea.  Such ideas that recognize both the Bible and empiricism take a giant step closer to bringing into fair consideration both of the Two Books.