Colossian Blog
November 9, 2011 | Andy Saur

Article – What I Would Like to Hear an Evolutionary Creationist Say

Article – What I Would Like to Hear an Evolutionary Creationist Say

By Todd Charles Wood
November 9th, 2011     

***See the companion article: “What I Would Like To Hear A Young-Earth Creationist Say” by Dennis Venema

If the world is supposed to know we are Christians because of our love for each other, then they’d never guess it when we talk about science and evolution.  I’ve been involved in this debate for almost my entire adult life, and I’ve seen a lot of disheartening behavior that is anything but loving.  As a young person I joined right in on the culture war, but as I’ve matured it seems either the debate has gotten more rancorous or I’ve just grown weary of the fighting.  Maybe it’s a little of both.  Whatever the reason, I’ve become interested in the past few years in ways of breaking the deadlock between the various factions in the war.  The challenge is how to do this?

Then out of the blue, I was invited to contribute something to the Colossian Forum, which I’d never heard of.  As I browsed their website, I sympathized with their stated goals, but my battle weariness made me suspicious of them.  When they suggested I write an essay on “What I would like to hear a theistic evolutionist say,” I couldn’t resist, because I knew exactly what I wanted to hear.  It’s the same thing I want to hear all sides of the debate confess.  It’s what I keep telling my students.  I suspect it might be the key to breaking the deadlock.

I don’t know.

You see, when I look across the battlefield, there’s one thing I see time and time again: Everyone acts as though their position is the only permissible one.  Everyone thinks they’ve got the right theological answers, and everyone thinks they’ve got the right scientific answers.  And of course, each side claims that they’ve got the only rational position.  But is this really true?

When I read over books and articles written by Christians who accept evolution, I notice two important trends.  One trend is the assurance that the scientific debate is settled and certain and more importantly that there is no contradiction between evolution and Christian theology.  This trend reflects that desire to have the answers and to put the best arguments forward.  The second trend is more subtle, and it’s unlikely to be noticed by reading a single author.  Let’s call the second trend theological disparity.

From this outsider’s perspective, it seems like there really is no unified theological position that all evolutionary creationists agree on.  In fact, they don’t even agree on what to call themselves.  Some prefer the newer “evolutionary creationist,” in order to emphasize their belief in God as a Creator God.  Others dislike the connotations of “creationist” and prefer the older term “theistic evolutionist.”  And that’s just the tip of the iceberg.

Can an evolutionary creationist (or theistic evolutionist, if you prefer) accept a literal Adam and Eve?  If so, how?  Was there a real fall from some perfect state?  If so, how did the fall work?  If not, what does it mean for redemption, both in this life and the one to come?  Tinkering around with the meaning of redemption then strikes at the core of Christianity.  Why did Jesus have to die?  What is the meaning of His resurrection?

Now it’s true that there are answers to all these questions.  Theistic evolutionists don’t shy away from hard questions, but the key point is that there is no agreed-upon answer to any of them.  One person insists that Adam and Eve and a real fall from perfection are not negotiable.  Another wants to keep Adam and Eve but is willing to rethink what the origin of sin might be.  Another thinks that Adam and Eve can be purely symbolic, but still thinks that the fall is real.  Most conservatives in the debate approach the issue of redemption with great care, but there are plenty of others who are quite willing to “reimagine” what Christ’s death and resurrection were all about.

Yet, despite this theological disparity, we are assured that there is no contradiction between Christian theology and evolution.  Call me crazy, but don’t you think if evolution and Christianity were so obviously and easily compatible, there might be a bit more unanimity on how that compatibility actually works?  Am I expecting too much?  Perhaps when people ask if Christian theology is compatible with evolution, the first answer should be, “I don’t know.”

To be fair, what I’ve just written could also be said about young-age creationists and science.  If it’s true that evolution is so obviously wrong and all the evidence supports creationism, why is there such a fight within creationism over cosmogony, Flood geology, created kinds, and speciation?  Call me crazy, but don’t you think if scientific evidence overwhelmingly supported creationism, there might be a bit more unanimity on these fundamental questions?

As a young age creationist, let me take this opportunity to follow my own advice and publicly express my ignorance.  If creationism is true, why can we see starlight from stars millions of light years away?  I don’t know.  If creationism is true, what does radiometric dating mean?  I don’t know.  If creationism is true, why do humans and chimpanzees have nearly identical genomes?  I don’t know.  Just like evolutionary creationists wrestling with theological issues, though, young-age creationists have proposed all sorts of answers to the above questions.  Some weren’t very good ideas, but others are quite intriguing.  And just like evolutionary approaches to theology, there is no single creationist scientific model that most creationists would accept.

So we don’t know.  That’s the real bottom line of this whole debate.  If we choose to accept the evolutionary model of origins, it’s not clear how or even whether we can retain a truly Christian theology.  If we choose to go with a creationist-type position, then we’re left with a myriad of unanswered scientific questions.  Either way we go, we don’t have all the answers.  Either way we go, we’re left with intellectual and spiritual tensions.

How can this confession of ignorance ever hope to resolve the deadlock over science and theology?  If you’re looking for one side (yours) to prevail over the others, then confessing ignorance is a guarantee of defeat.  In an intellectual battle, you’ve got to have answers, right?  Admitting that we don’t have answers just makes us look weak.  Opponents will never concede that we’re right if can’t answer their questions!

Maybe that’s the point.  Recall that the Apostles argued amongst themselves about which was the greatest.  Undoubtedly, part of that argument must have entailed which Apostle had the most theologically correct understanding of Jesus’ teachings.  What was Jesus’ response?  He got up and began washing their feet, just like a slave would do.  The time for words was past.  In that final, living parable, Christ showed us what it is to be great.  Those who exalt themselves will be humbled, but those who humble themselves will be exalted.  To be great, become the slave of all.

When it comes to the origins fight, maybe the key is to follow Christ’s example.  Maybe the only way we’ll ever resolve the war is through surrender.  Maybe in surrender, we’ll find out what real victory is.  Maybe we’ll find that confessing ignorance is the first step towards finding God’s truth.  Maybe we’ll discover that asking for wisdom is just what God wanted us to do all along.  Most important of all, maybe we’ll find that we can humbly ask for wisdom together, and in doing so, the world really will see something different about us.

 

Todd Charles Wood is an associate professor of biology and director of the Center for Origins Research at Bryan College. In his spare time, he enjoys classic movies, making pie, and traveling with his wife.

Suggested Posts
Reflections on Unity
May 24, 2017 | Josh Webb
Reflections on Unity
As a soon-to-be college graduate who is looking forward to heading out into the world, I’ve realized that I’m inheriting an American society that is more polarized than ever. Republicans hate Democrats, Democrats hate Republicans, and all of us are suspicious of those Independents. As I think about where I may find my next church home, I often read the statements of faith that many churches now publish on their websites. I ask myself if it’s a liberal church or a conservative church. I wonder what position their members and leadership take on gay marriage or evolution. Sometimes, from just a simple glance at a church web page, I uncharitably conclude that, “These aren’t the type of Christians I want to worship with”. I assume that I am not alone in this. Yet are we not one church? Do we not eat at one table, kneel at one cross, praise but one name? Across political, socioeconomic, and geographic divides, all Christians claim the same good news: that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us and was resurrected. How, then, do we account for the incredible differences in opinion among Christians today and what exactly do we do about it? The Apostle Paul compares the church to a human body. Like a human body, the body of Christ is made up of many parts. In 1 Corinthians 12 Paul writes, “Some of us are Jews, some are Gentiles, some are slaves, and some are free. But we have all been baptized into one body by one Spirit, and we all share the same Spirit”. Each part of the body brings a different perspective, a different understanding, and has a different role to play. But no part can function on its own and all must work together to survive. Even in the tremendous diversity of the body, by God's power there is unity. This unity in Christ has been hard to see in recent times. Christians of differing theological understandings have resorted to schism and isolation rather than attempting the hard work of confronting conflict. And while it may seem easier for rival factions to simply go their separate ways, where is the Christian witness in running from difficult situations? Is our belief in God's power so small that we cannot fathom the bridging of our differences? Is our commitment to Jesus' command to love one another really so weak? Paul's words admonish our actions: "The eye can never say to the hand, 'I don’t need you.' The head can’t say to the feet, 'I don’t need you.'" Our Christian witness is not found in our ability to agree on all things. We are not called to be a church of mindless clones. That is the witness of human culture, which forces individuals to choose between agreement or exclusion. Instead, our Christian witness is found in the fact that we are one body of many disagreeing parts. Our witness is found in our diversity, in our humility, in our graciousness, in our love for God, and in our love for one another. This is something the world cannot offer, for only God can hold together such a messy, marvelous body. As it is written in Colossians 1:17-18 (TCF’s namesake verse), “in Christ all things hold together. He is the head of the body, the church ….” Even with Christ as the head, disagreements will still exist among believers. But Christians have a choice when it comes to conflict in their churches. And when we choose to let Christ hold us together, we choose to receive the blessing of his saving grace and the power of his resurrection. The spiritual death that is enmity, division, and suspicion can be turned into a renewed life of love, unity, and understanding. I've seen it happen in my own life. I work at a church whose theological and political leanings differ from mine. Over the years, I've found myself becoming more critical and less gracious in my thoughts toward my church. But God has been working on my heart, and while I still don't agree with some of my church family, I've started loving them in a new way. Instead of loving my church family despite our disagreements, I've somehow come to love them because of those disagreements. I'm beginning to realize that my brothers and sisters who disagree with me are not some sort of trial or hardship, but an example of God's grace in my life. How else are we to experience God's grace and power if not through his ability to renew our lives in the midst of conflict and disagreement? I have been blessed with the time I've had as an intern at The Colossian Forum. My experience here has helped me come to a new understanding of what it means to be a part of the body of Christ. As I move forward into this next chapter of my life, I pray for opportunities to put this new perspective into practice, trusting that all things truly will hold together in Christ.
Schools Bridging Faith and Science
May 17, 2017 | Jennifer Vander Molen
Schools Bridging Faith and Science
This article originally appeared on May 8, 2017, in Convivium, a publication of CARDUS: www.cardus.ca. Thanks for the mention! Controversy over religion and science is nothing new. That’s certainly true in the world of education. Indeed, a recent commentary in the Washington Post lamented 60 examples of what the author called “anti-science education legislation” that could affect what American students are taught regarding the evolution-creation debate and global warming. We may even see the odd flare-up of such conflict in Canada. So, it’s not surprising that public skepticism abounds regarding the ability of religious schools – evangelical Christian schools in particular – to teach science. However, new research by the Cardus Religious Schools Initiative (CRSI) at the University of Notre Dame offers evidence that such skepticism is ill founded. In their newly released paper, Blinded by Religion? Religious School Graduates and Perceptions of Science in Young Adulthood , researchers Jonathan Schwartz and David Sikkink examined religious school graduates’ orientations toward science. Using the latest Cardus Education Survey data from Canada and the United States, they analyzed graduates’ views on a range of subjects, including science, creation vs. evolution, and the number of science courses taken. They found that graduates of religious schools do sometimes hold distinct views on science as compared to public school graduates. But these distinctions aren’t uniform across the board. Neither are they the kinds of distinctions that would inspire popular caricatures of religious school grads as simpletons who believe in a flat Earth. In fact, when it comes to taking science courses, you’d be hard-pressed to find much difference between Canadian religious and public school graduates. Controlling for family background and parental education, Schwartz and Sikkink found that “students at private religious schools enroll in science classes at a similar rate to public school peers in Canada.” The distinction in the United States, meanwhile, is that only homeschoolers (religious and non-religious) were the least likely of all students to have taken courses in biology, chemistry, or physics, or to have had at least three science courses throughout high school. There was little to distinguish American graduates of private Christian schools from their public school counterparts in that regard. What about attitudes toward scientists? You might expect some animosity towards them from religious grads, but you wouldn’t find it in Canada. “Generally speaking, Canadians hold scientists in similar esteem regardless of their high school educational context,” say the researchers. It’s a slightly different picture in the United States. There, graduates of evangelical Protestant schools tend to be less trusting of scientists and assign a lower value to their social contributions than public school grads do. That’s a difference to be sure, but hardly a unique or problematic one from a social point of view. The battle over whether to teach creationist critiques of evolutionary theory is certainly sharper in the United States than in Canada. And that seems to emerge in the research as well. “In Canada, school sector does not on its own increase an individual’s belief in literal versions of creationism, but the U.S. case differs,” write Schwartz and Sikkink. American grads of evangelical Protestant high schools were found to be “more likely to adhere to a literal version of creation than their public high school peers.” What they couldn’t determine, though, was whether this was the result of teaching in science class, or an indirect result of the students’ religious and social lives. In short, it will take more research to draw conclusions about whether these schools actually make much difference in graduates’ creationist views. What about perceived conflicts between religious beliefs and science? On this question, both in Canada and in the U.S., there is little evidence to show that the type of school a student attended affects their likelihood to sense a science-religion conflict. However, the researchers did find that the more high school science courses Canadian students take, the more likely they are to perceive a conflict between science and religion. Notably, though, that holds regardless of which type of school they attended. So, this could be the result of a cultural difference between Canadians and Americans. While the science-religion conflict does not come up in a big way in this research, that’s not to say that perceptions of conflict don’t exist. Some educators are taking steps to equip themselves to handle such issues in the classroom, as evidenced by the creation of the FAST (Faith and Science Teaching) Curriculum developed by the Kuyers Institute and The Colossian Forum. The curriculum aims to help teachers lead their students into studying the intersection of faith and science, possibly reducing perceptions of conflict in the process. Meanwhile, William T. Cavanaugh, DePaul University theology professor, and James K. A. Smith, editor-in-chief of Cardus’s public theology journal Comment , have co-edited a new book that tackles related issues from a different angle. Evolution and the Fall examines the implications for a Christian understanding of creation and the entry of sin into the world if the widely accepted view of humanity’s evolutionary origins are true. Its provocative premise lays bare issues that Christians will inevitably have to deal with. All in all, we do see some differences between graduates of private Christians schools and public school graduates. But they aren’t all that stark or as shocking. If anything, this latest piece of CRSI research is perhaps our strongest indicator yet that Christian schools in Canada and the United States don’t have as troubled a relationship with science as many would expect. What’s more, there are efforts within the wider Christian community to bridge what perceived gaps do exist between faith and science.  In time, the research and bridge-building efforts may increase understanding and support for the vital place that religious schools hold in the education systems of both Canada and the U.S.