Recent Comments
 
 
 
A significant reply to Dr. Owuor
 
Q&A: Have you read “The Evangelical Universalist” or “The Inescapable Love of God”?
 
Review: The Hunger Games Trilogy

Q&A: Do you believe in biological evolution – in terms of the origin of life?

October 14th, 2011.

Anonymous asks:

Do you believe in biological evolution – in terms of the origin of life?
It might sound like a strange thing to ask a Christian, but some people believe that it is plausible that God created the evolutionary process and that the Genesis 6 days of creation were not literal 24 hour days, allowing to marry old earth theory (billions of years) with the bible.
There was a time when I used to hold to this belief.
Big topic I know, but in brief, what’s your take?
Cheers

:-)

Hopefully you won’t be upset by something of a non-answer here.  Why the non-answer?  Because this is a topic that divides Christians and needlessly complicates the gospel message as seen by non-Christians.  At a certain level the question (or rather the precise answer) of origins is a secondary one.

This is not to say that I am anything-goes though.  I am a creationist - note that I haven’t said ‘Creation Scientist’ or ‘Young Earth Creationist’ or other such thing – my non-answer remains.  I do firmly believe that God created the heavens and the earth and all that is in them.

Further I believe that Genesis has much to tell us about creation.  Genesis affirms (in significant contrast to many creation myths) that God is the agent of creation, that he creates ex nihilo, that creation is well-ordered, purposefully and inherently good.  Genesis gives me insight into the relationships between humanity and the world, humanity and God, and within humanity itself.  I look to Genesis and I learn about stewardship and toil, marriage and intimacy, faithfulness and obedience.   I recognise the origins of the sin that I see in myself, I recognise the grace of God that we now know fully revealed in Jesus Christ.

Genesis is the Word of God.  It is Truth.

I do not necessarily see in Genesis the outworking of how God did this.  The genre of early Genesis is more akin to apocalyptic writing such as Revelation than narrative history.  That is not to say that it is not historical.  It has internal consistency and there is sense in the narrative however it is taken – absolutely literally, imprecisely literally (such as the “gap theory”), descriptively literally, etc. etc.

I am a person who is well-schooled and well-educated.  I understand what science is, and is not.  I understand its bounds and recognise the questions it can and cannot answer.  I know the difference between science that postulates, experiments and repeats, and science that observes, extrapolates and contends.  I am aware that statements of extrapolated facts given by some scientists are at least over zealous, sometimes even biased.

I disagree with how many humanist rationalists attempt to use Genesis – asserting “this is what the Bible absolutely literally says, and it is stupid.”  I also disagree with many religious rationalists who make a similarly wrong step, just in the opposite direction “this is what the Bible absolutely literally says, and we should take it absolutely literally like that irrespective of other inputs.”

So, I rejoice that God has made me, designed this world.  I rejoice in its beauty, I ache for its woundedness, I long for its redemption.  I am, therefore, a non-answer creationist, and that is all.

Ask a follow-up question:

 
Name (optional):

Enter characters below:
captcha

 

5 comments for “Q&A: Do you believe in biological evolution – in terms of the origin of life?”

  1. Anonymous says:

    Thank you for your non-answer answer.
    I can appreciate the approach you are taking with this subject matter. I understand your desire to keep people focused on the message of our salvation and not get side tracked with details. I agree with you that on a certain level the precise answer of origins is a secondary one. That is to say that, knowing that God created us is what is important – not the details in how He did this.

    Unfortunately, we are living in a time where the public at large are being sold evolution theory as fact. We are bombarded with it most everywhere. We are being convinced that if we don’t accept evolution, as the process of our origin, then we are putting our head in the sand and ignoring scientific fact.
    This bombardment of mis-information is leading people to feel that they need to unify long term evolutional processes with God’s six days of creation, for fear of feeling ignorant or appearing to be lacking intelligence – and this attempt in unification, when evolution is considered (although wrongly) as scientific fact, often leads to one’s faith in biblical truth being damaged – if not totally destroyed. It’s a ripple effect. And it doesn’t take a scholar to see the incompatibilities.

    However, the irony of it all is that evolution IS just a theory NOT a fact. Despite popular belief (due to media bombardment) the scientific evidences are continuing to stack up against the theory of evolution (old earth theory) while remaining in harmony with a biblical six day creation account and hence “young earth” (approximately 6,000 years) – including a huge amount of archaeological support for a world wide flood. – I believe you Will when you say that you are a person who is well-schooled and well-educated, so I’m sure you already know about all of this. However, if you are not aware, I highly recommend that you visit creation.com and that you direct your church members there also.

    In all honestly, although I can see your good intentions, I’m a little disappointed with your non-answer answer. There are many, many Christians who have questions regarding evolution. They see the conflict it has with Scripture and so the seeds of doubt are sown in them.
    With an “old-earth” position, held with consistency, we have a very difficult time explaining how we have an historical Adam and Eve as the first parents of all humanity. To create unity we are forced to employ interpretative methodologies which impacts our understanding of the rest of Scripture.
    Many biblical re-interpretations lead people into what is often called “new-age spiritualism”. This is “spiritualism” based on some of Christ’s teachings (what some call Christ-consciousness), where one aims to live in peace and acceptance, but believing that all will eventually receive enlightenment or evolve into a higher vibrational state, a god-like state, and therefore needing no saviour. Ultimately believing that there is no good or evil – that there is no sin – that it “just is”.

    Bottom line.
    If I was “sitting on the fence” with my faith and searching for real answers, a non-answer response from my church leader would leave me a little disheartened and I would have no other option but to seek guidance outside the church. Is this what God would want?

  2. Will says:

    Hi Anon,

    I hear you. The problem is not “sitting in the fence” its about sitting on the wrong fence. The cross of Christ is the touchstone of our faith, and it is the gospel that should be the scandal, hence my emphasis and non-answer.

    Blessings,

    W.

  3. Anonymous says:

    G’day Will,
    “…….and it is the gospel that should be the scandal, hence my emphasis and non-answer.”
    What do you mean?
    Are you saying that our focus should be on the gospel and not on the evolution scandal? – Hence, the gospel should be the scandal? If that’s what you’re saying I couldn’t agree more!
    The sad thing however is that many people are being turned away from the gospel because it is not cohesive with what they are being told is fact.
    As I see it, the importance isn’t in knowing exactly how God created, the importance is in establishing faith in the Word of God. My “bottom line” comment wasn’t referring to sitting on the fence between evolution & creation, it was referring to sitting on the fence between believing the bible to be infallible or fallible, between being a Christian or not being a Christian.
    When someone turns to you seeking guidance in the area of evolution (because it is threatening their faith) do you help them by;
    demonstrating how Genesis can be reinterpreted to appear cohesive with evolution (deliberately avoiding some areas – for “their sake”) ?
    or
    Telling them that they shouldn’t think about it and that they shouldn’t ask you about it?
    or
    Affirming that you believe the bible is infallible and that if they were to take a moment, and look beyond what is promoted to the public, they will soon understand that the scientific community is overflowing with unproven theories about evolution?
    or
    Guiding them another way?

    • Will says:

      Hi Anon (would love to know who you are!),

      I am well and truly not on the fence when it comes to the infallibility of Scripture. Scripture is infallible full stop. The Word of God has achieved, achieves, and will achieve all that it is purposed and inspired for. And that includes Genesis.

      Scriptural infallibility is the foundation of exegesis of course. And, as with many other parts of Scripture, the exegesis of Genesis is not punctiliar. We can say, in fact _must say_, “I’m not sure exactly what it means, but it at least means this….” and still be truly Christian, and truly submissive to the Word of God. If this was not so the Scripture would not have perspecuity. So, as mentioned in my original answer, it is possible to push back at modernist tendencies for eisegesis and not be denying infallibility.

      When someone seeks guidance in the area of evolution I encourage them towards undertaking their own exegesis – to study the Scriptures and seek the truth. I will demonstrate the weaknesses in extreme evolutionary assertions, as well as unpack the areas where some on the creationist extreme move from exegesis to culturally-imbibed speculation. I assert as clearly as I can the truths which Genesis makes clear – that God is the purposeful Creator of fundamentally good creation etc. as mentioned in my original answer.

      In other words, I proclaim truth. I assert those areas where the meaning is clear, I help define the parameters where faithful examination, interpretation, speculation can occur and encourage them to explore the revelation of God with faithfulness and, indeed, reverence.

      Depending on the context I would give voice to my own conclusions within those areas of faithful examination but which remain “open-handed” rather than “close-handed” issues. And those conclusions would maybe satisfy your desire for a black and white answer from me. But right here, on this blog, is not the right context for that as it may scandalise those who draw different faithful conclusions on the open-handed issues and that would be wrong of me.

      If you’re anywhere near Hobart, we could perhaps do coffee and we could take the conversation further :-)

      W.

      • Anonymous says:

        Hi Will,
        Thank you very much for your reply.
        You have helped me to understand your position on this matter and given me some clarity on how you guide people, within this issue, to lead them gently and lovingly towards Jesus Christ. And as always, I have learned much along the way.
        God bless you my friend.

Leave a Reply

Identify yourself using a social network:

Connect with Facebook

Or provide details manually (*=required):

*

 

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>