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.
Can't someone make a new evolution bumper sticker which has man now going in "reverse", back to the bowed legs & hobbling hips shown in early cro-magnon examples at the start of most evolution diagrams?
ReplyDeleteNote the sagging pants nowadays worn by rappers & hip-hop criminals. The pants hang down now as the wearer compensates by forcing his gait & stature to "hobble" back toward the bowed leg scenario of cro-magnon man (& woman).
If evolution was "valid", won't the new hip-hop crowd evolve their legs "back" toward the Lancelot Link (secret chimp)? Let's see a new bumper sticker for "evolution", going in "reverse".
The Armstrong mentality has always been tuned into critiquing hair styles and pants. Apparently, 1940's styles are the only acceptable ones in both categories. Tighter fitting pants, then bell bottoms, and later excessively baggy pants were all trashed as they came and went on the national fashion scene. If you check out the hip hop fashions of 2026, you will see that there is great diversity. Not everybody wears oversized pants and backwards baseball caps these days.
ReplyDeleteIt's Time To Retire 'Theistic Evolution'
ReplyDeleteJohn Farrell, Former Contributor. I cover science and technology.
forbes.com
Mar 19, 2016:
This article is more than 10 years old.
When you read enough in the religion/science debates these days, especially when it comes to Christianity and evolution, you realize there are a whole pack of creationists who don’t like other Christians embracing evolution.
They have a name for them. ‘Theistic Evolutionists’. And it’s not meant as a compliment. It’s more like being told you’re the equivalent of Judas Iscariot.
Any religious person who accepts evolution, like physicist and author Karl Giberson, or like NIH Director Francis Collins, or for that matter the entire staff at BioLogos, must be labeled and considered no allies in creationists’ fight to get creationism in one kind or another taught in public school science classes. They look at people like this as aiding and abetting ‘the enemy’.
For related reasons, the term has also caught on with some atheists who want to keep an arms length between themselves and fellow scientists who happen to be religious.
Richard Dawkins called the term ‘theistic evolution’ an attempt to ‘smuggle God in by the back door,’ and he had a point, according to Stacy A. Trasancos, who has a PhD in chemistry and is a Catholic with her own blog about religion and science.
You accept the science on its merits or you don’t, she said. It doesn’t matter whether you’re religious, or not. But if you are, accepting what science has to tell should not be a problem.
“Think about it. If you are a believer, it is already implied that you see all biological and physical processes as created and held in existence by God. You do not need "theistic" in front of biological terms. Who speaks of theistic reproduction? Or theistic gestation, theistic meiosis, or theistic menstruation? Plus, to qualify a biological process as ‘theistic’ implies that the opposite is possible, that God may not be involved in creating certain laws of nature.”
Brown University biologist and author Kenneth R. Miller states the term simply compromises the integrity of the science.
When I reached him by email, he said, “To me, and in the minds of most people who use the term, it implies that a god had to pre-ordain the outcome of the evolutionary process or at the very least guide it along to produce the world of today, including human beings his chosen creatures. I don't believe that at all. Evolution is a fully-independent natural process driven by chance and necessity.”
This has irked some of his non-religious colleagues in the field, who continue to suspect that, one way or another, religious biologists like himself are trying to ‘add’ something supernatural to the mix. Miller flatly denies this.
Part 2
ReplyDelete“People like Jerry Coyne routinely accuse me of holding to the view that God intervened in the evolutionary process,” said Miller, “and it seems like no matter how many times I post on his blog that I believe exactly the opposite, he persists. That's one reason why I reject the label of theistic evolutionist at every opportunity I get.”
Like Trasancos, Miller said, the term makes absolutely no sense. “The very fact that so many feel obliged to attach a statement about religious faith to evolution implies that evolution itself is a religious process, or at least has a special religious significance that other fields of science do not have. I reject that premise.”
Now, what’s interesting here is that Miller and Trasancos are both Catholics, and Catholic intellectual tradition has a longstanding interest in science and philosophy going back to Aristotle and the ancient Greeks. It’s a tradition very different from evangelical Christianity, where the main opposition to teaching Darwin in public schools comes in the U.S.
Long before Darwin, for example, medieval scholastics entertained the notion that God could be viewed, to use one analogy, more as a CEO than an engineer. One scholar who’s been all over this is Pasadena College philosophy professor Edward Feser, who regularly tangles with intelligent design creationists—and deconstructs their arguments on purely philosophical grounds.
This isn’t to say there are not Catholic creationists. There certainly are, and they form a bizarre strain of the anti-science mentality all to themselves. But that’s a different topic.
The main point is Christian scientists who accept evolution have a much broader understanding of God than—chief engineer. And ‘theistic evolution’, as its summarized for example at Wikipedia, simply misrepresents their position.
Atheists have voiced many arguments for wondering how Christians can maintain belief in a benevolent deity in a world that features so much apparent waste and suffering ‘built in’ to the program, as science has revealed.
But ‘theistic evolution’ isn’t one of their answers, at least not among the serious scientists I know who are theists. And it’s well past its sell-by date.
So, what's this coming out of this dude's head? Is he saying it exists, but he just doesn't like the name people call it?
ReplyDelete