DOCSLIB.ORG

Some Problems for Theistic Evolution

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Some Problems for Theistic Evolution Article Some Problems for Theistic Evolution Some Problems for Theistic Evolution Robert C. Newman Most readers of Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith are acquainted with the terms “young-earth creation,” “old-earth creation,” and “theistic evolution.”1 These reflect the fact that, among Christians in general and within the American Scientific Affiliation in particular, there is considerable disagreement on how to relate the biblical and scientific data on origins. Some feel that theistic evolution is not the best solution. Here I wish to suggest why, by examining some problems for theistic evolution, both scientific and theological. Before looking at these problems, we will need to consider what theistic evolution is, and try to sort it into its various versions. After all, different forms of theistic evolution may face different problems. What is Theistic Evolution? the geologic record—the combination pro- Keith Stewart Thomson has a helpful discus- ducing a pattern of increasing diversity and The divergence sion in The American Scientist entitled “The complexity from the earliest fossils to the Meanings of Evolution.”2 Though he deals present. So stated, evolution parts company between theistic with evolution in general rather than theistic here with young-earth creationists, who see evolution, much of what he has to say is in the geologic column mostly the record of evolution and applicable. Thomson distinguishes three dif- a one-year flood rather than a large fraction ferent senses for the term “evolution.” of earth’s history. “Blind 1. Pattern: Change over time. The first is a But theistic evolution and old-earth cre- Watchmaker” “general sense of change over time.”3 Stated ation do not divide on this matter. Thomson so vaguely, this is nearly worthless for defin- notes that “change over time is the most sol- evolution is ing evolution. All but a few ancient Greek idly based fact of evolution”7 (based as it is philosophers believe there has been change on the mass of fossil evidence) but that this whether there over time. Even when Thomson particular- meaning “includes no statement or inference izes this to changes in “the qualitative and about process.”8 The divergence between is a God quantitative diversity of organisms over theistic evolution and old-earth creation, it space and time,”4 few views on origins seems to me, is basically over the process behind the would be excluded, except such varieties of God used to produce this diversity. If we young-earth creation as deny any change at could observe the geologic record at a very process. all since creation. However, some young- high time-resolution, it might be possible to earth creationists have suggested very large see whether the more gradual transitions changes in animal diversity since the flood, e.g., deriving all cat-kinds (lions, tigers, Robert C. Newman, ASA fellow and chairman of its Commission on Creation, is housecats, etc.) from a single pair on the professor of New Testament at the Biblical Theological Seminary of Hatfield, Ark.5 This requires changes at rates even Pennsylvania and Director of the Interdisciplinary Biblical Research Institute. As a theologian, he has earned the degrees of Master of Divinity and Master faster than the usual evolutionary models. of Sacred Theology. He has done further graduate work in religious thought, bibli- Such young-earth creationists would thus be cal geography, and biblical interpretation. In the field of science, he received his theistic evolutionists, though I doubt they B.S. in physics from Duke University and his Ph.D. in theoretical astrophysics accept the label. from Cornell University. He has done scientific research for the U.S. Weather Bureau and the Franklin Institute. A frequent speaker at churches and colleges, In any case, Thomson couples these Bob is author or co-author of five books and a number of published articles. He has changes in biotic diversity with “a parallel also made guest television appearances on “700 Club,” “100 Huntley Street,” and set of data for changes in the earth itself”6— “Mysteries of the Bible.” He can be reached by email at: [email protected]. Volume 55, Number 2, June 2003 117 Article Some Problems for Theistic Evolution proposed by theistic evolution or the more 3. Mechanism: Natural Selection. The third rapid ones of old-earth creation are sup- sense Thomson proposes for evolution is ported by the evidence. To the best of my Darwinism, or natural selection, “a model of knowledge, this is not yet possible, except as random variation and differential sur- noted in our discussion of transitional fossils vival.”13 It is here that theistic evolutionists below. and old-earth creationists take different paths. But the situation is more complicated The divergence between theistic evolu- than a simple bifurcation. For one thing, tion and “Blind Watchmaker” evolution is nearly all theistic models of origins (includ- There are whether there is a God behind the process. ing special creation) admit some measure of This is the sort of distinction the intelligent natural selection. This is typically limited to those design movement is seeking to detect. microevolution by young-earth and old- earth creationists, so we might say that the 2. Process: Descent through common ances- real divide is over whether random variation who call try. Thomson’s second sense for the meaning and differential survival is the sole mecha- of evolution is that “organisms are related by nism to explain the diversity of life on earth, themselves descent through common ancestry.”9 No one with theistic evolutionists saying “yes” and (including young-earth creationists) will special creationists saying “no.” But random evolutionists, deny that this is true for some organisms, but variation and differential survival have Thomson intends this to mean that all earthly nothing to work upon until one has a self- even in a organisms are so related. He notes that this is replicating automaton, whether this be a cell a hypothesis which logically follows from or a molecular system. So what is the mecha- nontheistic “the twin premises that [1] life arose only nism to get from simple organics to a self- once on earth and that [2] all life proceeds replicating system? Probably various theistic sense, who from preexisting life.”10 evolutionists will opt for different answers. But this second sense is a bit problematic. What are we to make of “random” varia- would not There are those who call themselves evolu- tion? This will split the nontheistic evolu- tionists, even in a nontheistic sense, who tionists from the theists. But as Keith Miller agree with would not agree with common descent. For and David Wilcox suggest in their ASA evolutionists who believe in an extraterres- (American Scientific Affiliation) Statement common trial origin of life, there is no compelling on Creation (see p. 119), this will also split reason why all of it reaching earth need have the theistic evolutionists into a number of descent. come from the same source.11 And even groups, depending on how one defines “ran- evolutionists who believe that all terrestrial dom.” And how one defines random may life got its start on earth need not insist that also have some bearing on whether one life arose here only once.12 Thus this mean- would expect to see empirical evidence ing of evolution, descent through common which would distinguish theistic from non- ancestry, divides even nontheistic evolu- theistic evolution. Has God so hidden him- tionists, although the majority is currently in self that humans could not detect his activity favor of common descent. anywhere in the history of life on earth, not even by statistical means? If nontheistic evolutionists can believe that modern life derived from a few simple ASA Creation Statement life forms rather than one, then theistic evo- Consider next the statement on theistic evo- lutionists need not postulate a single source lution composed by Keith Miller and David either—other than God, the ultimate source. Wilcox for the Creation Statement Subcom- Though nearly all old-earth creationists mittee of the ASA Commission on Creation. postulate at least two independent creations Neither their statement, nor the larger whole (original life and humankind), one could of which it is a part, was intended to bind the still be an old-earth creationist while having ASA or officially reflect the exact diversity all life descended from one original form. of views therein. The larger statement was Here, too, it looks like it is the mechanism designed to be a consensus of the views of that distinguishes theistic evolution from the subcommittee, which was itself selected old-earth creation, though that, too, may to reflect something of the diversity in the have some kinks we need to investigate. ASA. The individual statements on various 118 Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith Robert C. Newman ASA Statement on Creation: views of creation were composed by one or Theistic Evolution (Continuous Creation, more proponents of the particular view involved. So this statement is that of Keith Evolutionary Creation) View and David, but they attempt to reflect such Theological Statements: diversity within theistic evolution of which A. In addition to the theological commitments affirmed by all parties, ASA mem- they were aware. I have added the letters A, bers who accept an evolutionary* perspective, would affirm the following: B, and C to three of the headings to facilitate 1. God is free to act in creation in any way consistent with His character. The nature of the physical universe and of God’s interaction is a consequence reference to specific points. of God’s free choice. Let me make a few comments on the 2. Evolutionary processes* are not antithetical to God’s creative action.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Creation, Design and Evolution: Can Science Discover Or Eliminate God?
    University of St. Thomas Journal of Law and Public Policy Volume 4 Issue 1 Fall 2009 Article 5 January 2009 Creation, Design and Evolution: Can Science Discover or Eliminate God? Peter M.J. Hess Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.stthomas.edu/ustjlpp Part of the First Amendment Commons, Law and Philosophy Commons, and the Religion Law Commons Recommended Citation Peter M. Hess, Creation, Design and Evolution: Can Science Discover or Eliminate God?, 4 U. ST. THOMAS J.L. & PUB. POL'Y 102 (2009). Available at: https://ir.stthomas.edu/ustjlpp/vol4/iss1/5 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by UST Research Online and the University of St. Thomas Journal of Law and Public Policy. For more information, please contact the Editor-in-Chief at [email protected]. CREATION, DESIGN AND EVOLUTION: CAN SCIENCE DISCOVER OR ELIMINATE GOD? PETER M. J. HESS, PH.D.* NATIONAL CENTER FOR SCIENCE EDUCATION "The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament shows forth his handiwork." Psalms 19:1 INTRODUCTION: THE PLAYING OUT OF THE DESIGN ARGUMENT IN THE WEST Every culture has its views about the universe, about the human person, and about the great metaphysical questions that confront us. How ought we to think about the relationship between cosmology, anthropology, and theology? This may be a challenge for us in our increasingly secular post- modem culture, but for most of human history it was not an issue. In the Judeo-Christian tradition these areas of human reflection were naturally bound up together, as in the Hebrew psalmist's proto-statement of the argument from design: "the heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament shows forth his handiwork."' The scholastic university culture of the High Middle Ages held as its ideal the "unity of knowledge," or unitas scientiae, approaching the study of the universe as a coherent and knowable whole.
    [Show full text]
  • Toward a Christian Theology of Evolution Ameh Ejeh
    Duquesne University Duquesne Scholarship Collection Electronic Theses and Dissertations Fall 2007 Scientific volutE ion, Creation Theologies and African Cosmogonies in Dialogue: Toward a Christian Theology of Evolution Ameh Ejeh Follow this and additional works at: https://dsc.duq.edu/etd Recommended Citation Ejeh, A. (2007). Scientific vE olution, Creation Theologies and African Cosmogonies in Dialogue: Toward a Christian Theology of Evolution (Doctoral dissertation, Duquesne University). Retrieved from https://dsc.duq.edu/etd/519 This Immediate Access is brought to you for free and open access by Duquesne Scholarship Collection. It has been accepted for inclusion in Electronic Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Duquesne Scholarship Collection. For more information, please contact [email protected]. SCIENTIFIC EVOLUTION, CREATION THEOLOGIES, AND AFRICAN COSMOGONIES IN DIALOGUE: TOWARD A CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY OF EVOLUTION A Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of Theology McAnulty Graduate School of Liberal Arts Duquesne University In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Systematic Theology By Rev. Ameh Ambrose Ejeh November 2007 Copyright by Rev. Ameh Ambrose Ejeh 2007 SCIENTIFIC EVOLUTION, CREATION THEOLOGIES, AND AFRICAN COSMOGONIES IN DIALOGUE: TOWARD A CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY OF EVOLUTION By Rev. Ameh Ambrose Ejeh Approved November 30, 2007 ______________________________________________________________ Anne M. Clifford, C. S. J., Ph.D., Dissertation Director ______________________________________________________________
    [Show full text]
  • Darwin's Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection
    Darwin’s Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection A new theory of biological species Waseda University, SILS, Introduction to History and Philosophy of Science The Facts about Evolution In the early modern period, due to colonialism and empire building, European naturalists, working in centralized botanical gardens and national zoos, investigated an unprecedented variety of animal and plant specimens. Starting in the 18th century, naturalists began to systematically investigate the fossil remains of various organisms and compare these with living organisms. In the early half of the 19th century, it became clear that there had once existed entire families of flora and fauna (plants and animals) that had passed out of existence, and that moreover, in the periods – that is, geological strata – in which these creatures existed, much of the flora and fauna that are alive today did not exist. The evidence for large-scale biological change was gathered slowly and was still ongoing when Darwin was working. 1 / 30 Various Theories of Evolution Although there was a lot of disagreement about how these changes had taken place, and what they implied, by Darwin’s time, most naturalists accepted that there had been some changes in biological species. However, even if we accept that there has been change in species throughout the history of the earth, we might have several different theories about how this change occurred. All of the theories advanced before Darwin argued for some kind of directed change – in some sense responding to, and hence directly influenced by, the environment and the actions of organisms. Darwin tried to distinguish his theories from these by arguing that evolutionary changes were based only on naturally occurring processes – processes that are still occurring around us now.
    [Show full text]
  • Obstacles to Accepting Evolution by Natural Selection
    Sci & Educ DOI 10.1007/s11191-009-9204-8 Getting to Darwin: Obstacles to Accepting Evolution by Natural Selection Paul Thagard Æ Scott Findlay Ó Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009 Abstract Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection is central to modern biology, but is resisted by many people. This paper discusses the major psychological obstacles to accepting Darwin’s theory. Cognitive obstacles to adopting evolution by natural selection include conceptual difficulties, methodological issues, and coherence problems that derive from the intuitiveness of alternative theories. The main emotional obstacles to accepting evolution are its apparent conflict with valued beliefs about God, souls, and morality. We draw on the philosophy of science and on a psychological theory of cognitive and emo- tional belief revision to make suggestions about what can be done to improve acceptance of Darwinian ideas. 1 Introduction Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection is widely recognized by scientists as the cornerstone of modern biology, but many people, especially in the United States, remain skeptical (Miller et al. 2006). According to a recent poll in Canada’s oil-rich province of Alberta, more people there believe that humans were created by God within the last 10,000 years than that humans evolved from less advanced life forms over millions of years (Breakenridge 2008). Science educators in several countries have reported serious problems in enabling students to understand and accept evolution by natural selection (e.g. Anderson 2007; Blackwell et al. 2003; Deniz et al. 2008; Evans 2008; Hokayem and BouJaoude 2008; Sinatra et al.
    [Show full text]
  • THEISTIC EVOLUTION: a Scientific, Philosophical, and Theological Critique
    THEISTIC EVOLUTION: A Scientific, Philosophical, and Theological Critique Crossway Publishing (Wheaton, IL), Academic, expected November 2017, 1008 pp. ISBN-10: 1-4335-5286-8 ISBN-13: 978-1-4335-5286-1 Ed. by J.P. Moreland, Stephen Meyer, Christopher Shaw, Ann Gauger, Wayne Grudem Foreword by Steve Fuller Scientific and Philosophical Introduction: Defining Theistic Evolution Stephen C. Meyer Biblical and Theological Introduction: The Incompatibility of Theistic Evolution with the Biblical Account of Creation and with Important Christian Doctrines Wayne Grudem SECTION I: THE SCIENTIFIC CRITIQUE OF THEISTIC EVOLUTION Section I, Part 1: The Failure of Neo-Darwinism 1. Three Good Reasons for People of Faith to Reject Darwin’s Explanation of Life Douglas D. Axe People of faith should reject the call to affirm the Darwinian explanation of life and should instead affirm the traditional understanding of divine creative action, which defies reduction to natural causes. There are three good reasons for this: (1) Acceptance of Darwinism carries a substantial apologetic cost. Specifically, if Darwin was right that life can be explained by accidental physical causes, then we must forfeit the claim that all humans are confronted by God’s existence when we behold the wonders of the living world. (2) All accidental explanations of life, whether Darwinian or not, are demonstrably implausible. (3) The common justifications for accommodating Darwin’s theory within the framework of traditional faith are confused. 2. Neo-Darwinism and the Origin of Biological Form and Information Stephen C. Meyer According to textbook neo-Darwinian theory, new genetic information arises first as random mutations occur in the DNA of existing organisms.
    [Show full text]
  • 19Th Century Evolutionary Theories
    19th Century Ideas about Evolution Various theories of evolution, and a growing consensus on the facts of evolution Waseda University, SILS, History of Modern Earth and Life Sciences Various theories of evolution By Darwin’s time, most naturalists accepted that there had been some changes in biological species. However, even if we accept that there has been change in species throughout the history of the earth, we might have several different theories about how this change occurred. All of the theories advanced before Darwin argued for some kind of directed change, in some sense responding to and hence directly influenced by the environment and the actions of organisms. Darwin tried to distinguish his theories from these by arguing that evolutionary changes was based only on naturally occurring processes – processes that are still occurring around us now. In fact, however, by the end of the 19th century, most naturalists still thought of evolution as an essentially directed process. Evolution in the 19th Century 1 / 30 The theory of evolution by natural selection The theory of evolution by natural selection is a theory about the mechanism by which evolution occurred in the past, and is still occurring now. The basic theory was developed by both Darwin and Wallace, however, Darwin gave a much fuller argument. The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection The theory states that biological change takes place with two basic characteristics: 1) Variation: Random variations occur in the traits of individual organisms and are passed on to their offspring. 2) Struggle for existence: There is an existential competition that insures advantageous traits are preserved and disadvantageous traits are eliminated.
    [Show full text]
  • Theistic Evolution: an Incoherent and Inconsistent Worldview?
    Answers Research Journal 5 (2012):99–114. www.answersingenesis.org/arj/v5/theistic-evolution-worldview.pdf Theistic Evolution: An Incoherent and Inconsistent Worldview? Callie Joubert, P.O. Box 515, Hyper by the Sea, Durban, South Africa 4025 Abstract In recent years there has been an explosion of literature in which theistic evolutionists describe, explain, and defend three beliefs at the core of their worldview. Firstly, God was/is working in and through the evolutionary process. Secondly, the evolutionary story of origins is not only scientific but also compatible with the biblical record of creation. And thirdly, they believe their worldview is entirely plausible, intellectually satisfying, and logically consistent. The aim of this paper is to defend the following thesis: Christians are caught up in theistic evolutionism without realizing that the worldview of theistic evolutionism is incoherent and inconsistent with the teachings of Scripture. I first provide some preliminary remarks about worldviews and the way to assess them. I then contrast the core characteristics of young-earth creationism and theistic evolutionism as they apply to a description and explanation of the kinds of entities that exist, their natures, their coming to be, the cause of evil in the world, and how it can be known. Along the way, I highlight various critical issues to consider and provide a critique of theistic evolution. Keywords: theistic evolutionism, young-earth creationism, worldview. Introduction evil in the world, and how it can be known. Along the In recent years there has been an explosion of way, I will highlight various critical issues to consider literature in which theistic evolutionists describe, and provide a critique of theistic evolutionism.
    [Show full text]
  • Evolution and Personal Religious Belief: Christian University Biology-Related Majors’ Search for Reconciliation
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Faculty Publications: Department of Teaching, Department of Teaching, Learning and Teacher Learning and Teacher Education Education 2011 Evolution and personal religious belief: Christian university biology-related majors’ search for reconciliation Mark Winslow Southern Nazarene University, [email protected] John Staver Purdue University, [email protected] Lawrence C. Scharmann University of Nebraska-Lincoln, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/teachlearnfacpub Part of the Biology Commons, Curriculum and Instruction Commons, and the Teacher Education and Professional Development Commons Winslow, Mark; Staver, John; and Scharmann, Lawrence C., "Evolution and personal religious belief: Christian university biology-related majors’ search for reconciliation" (2011). Faculty Publications: Department of Teaching, Learning and Teacher Education. 384. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/teachlearnfacpub/384 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Department of Teaching, Learning and Teacher Education at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Publications: Department of Teaching, Learning and Teacher Education by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. digitalcommons.unl.edu Evolution and Personal Religious Belief: Christian University Biology-Related Majors’ Search for Reconciliation Mark W. Winslow,1 John R. Staver,2 and Lawrence C. Scharmann3 1 Southern Nazarene University, Bethany, Oklahoma 73008 2 Center for Research and Engagement in Science and Mathematics Education (CRESME), Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana 47907 3 School of Teacher Education, College of Education, Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida 32306 Correspondence: M.W.
    [Show full text]
  • Theistic Evolution: Deism Revisited? Michael A
    JETS 40/4 (December 1997) 639–651 THEISTIC EVOLUTION: DEISM REVISITED? MICHAEL A. HARBIN* The current creation-evolution debate is much more complex than a mere religion-science issue, although it is often simpli˜ed into an either-or con˘ict between right-wing Christian fundamentalists and science.1 This simpli˜- cation probably occurs because the classic evolutionist position is both nat- uralistic and atheistic. It is naturalistic because it argues that the entire universe is a product of natural processes that are currently being observed through science and that may be extrapolated back for an extremely long period of time. It is atheistic because a universe of natural causes seems to lead logically into a position that there is no God. The antithesis of this po- sition is creationism, normally formulated in terms of a literal understand- ing of the ˜rst two chapters of Genesis and usually associated with what is called a young earth. While often characterized as a religion-science debate, both sides claim to be based on scienti˜c data.2 Both sides are also often characterized as reli- gious.3 Moreover many people who hold to an evolutionary model also claim to hold to the traditional beliefs of Christianity. Phillip Johnson argues that the basic struggle is really between two worldview paradigms: “Is God the true creator of everything that exists, or is God a product of the human imagination, real only in the minds of those who believe?”4 According to Johnson the basic issue is not the question of the data but how the data are interpreted—whether one views the data through a theistic grid or through a naturalistic grid.
    [Show full text]
  • Christian Evolutionists in the United States, 1860-1900
    Journal of Cambridge Studies 14 1 Christian Evolutionists in the United States, 1860-1900 Bernard LIGHTMAN∗ York University Abstract: In this paper I will examine the theistic evolutionism of four important American Christian leaders, Minot Judson Savage, Joseph Cook, Henry Ward Beecher, and Lyman Abbott. From the late 1870’s to the 1890’s these men played a key role in the construction of a theory of evolution congenial to various forms of Christianity. I will argue that an appreciation of significant differences in national context will help us to understand how theistic evolutionism remained a viable option in the United States up until the end of the nineteenth century. Key Words: Theistic evolution, American Christianity, Darwin Trained as a Congregationalist minister, Joseph Cook became a gifted public lecturer whose oratory drew large crowds. From 1880 to 1882 he undertook a world lecture tour to Great Britain, India, Japan, and Australia. Cook’s success was based on his ability to assure his audiences that modern science and traditional Protestantism were cut from the same cloth. In 1877, his Boston Monday Lectures were published under the title Biology, with Preludes on Current Events. Here he maintained that there were several distinct evolutionary hypotheses that could be grouped according to their religious implications. He believed that “the question of chief interest to religious science is, whether the new philosophy is to be established in its atheistic, its agnostic, or its theistic form.” Cook devoted two chapters to the ‘concessions of evolutionists,’ which indicated to him that agnostic evolutionists like T. H. Huxley were losing the battle to define the religious significance of Darwin’s theory.
    [Show full text]
  • The Reception of Darwinism in the Nineteenth Century: a Three Part Story
    S & CB (2009), 21, 3–24 0954–4194 EDWARD J. LARSON The Reception of Darwinism in the Nineteenth Century: A Three Part Story For over a century, historians and other scholars have debated the impact of ‘Darwinism’ on late nineteenth century biological and social thought. The general view holds that Darwinism quickly became ascendant in science and has remained so ever since. Recent scholarship points toward a more nuanced view in large part because of a growing appreciation of how the term was then understood. To the extent that Darwinism simply meant evolutionary descent with modification, then the general view remains widely accepted by historians. Virtually every laboratory biologist and field naturalist accepted the concept by 1880 and continues to do so. During the late nineteenth century, however, Darwin’s particular theory of evolution by natural selection, which was also commonly referred to as ‘Darwinism’, gradually lost ground to other scientific explanations for organic evolution. Further, despite Darwin’s passionate defence of it, any direct evolutionary link between human and animal nature remained highly controversial throughout the nineteenth century. Keywords: Darwinism, Neo-Lamarckism, orthogenesis, natural selection, evolution, biogeography, mutation theory, T. H. Huxley, Ernst Haeckel, Alfred Russel Wallace Surveying the scientific scene in 1868, British naturalist and science leader Thomas Henry Huxley congratulated Charles Darwin, ‘You will have the rare happiness to see your ideas triumphant in your lifetime.’1 Precisely what Hux- ley meant by this comment is unclear because Huxley himself remained uncommitted to several key tenets of Darwin’s epoch insight that new species evolve from old species through a survival-of-the-fittest process known as nat- ural selection.
    [Show full text]
  • Scripture, Science & Tim Keller's Theistic Evolution
    1 Scripture, Science & Tim Keller's Theistic Evolution Abstract This position paper regarding theistic evolution is offered in response to Tim Keller and others in the PCA who claim Darwinian and Neo-Darwinian macroevolution are consistent with both God’s special revelation in Scripture and the findings of science. The opposite position is held and defended in this paper. Genesis 1 is not mythological; rather, it is the factual account of God’s supernatural work of creation. Additionally, both the history of evolutionary theory and modern discoveries in molecular biology expose the fact that evolution is a presupposition with no roots in scientific discovery. According to Tim Keller, Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are incompatible if both are read literally. Dr. Keller says Genesis 2:5 seems to indicate God’s work of creation followed a natural order. In other words, according to Dr. Keller we should not expect to have light without a natural or created source of light, and we should not expect to have plants without the same natural processes that we presently observe operating in nature. Thus, Dr. Keller’s method of interpreting Genesis 1 is based on nature and science as his interpretive grid, rather than Scripture. We contend that Scripture is God’s supernatural special revelation and Scripture teaches that God created various kinds of life individually and supernaturally rather than through a naturalistic evolutionary process by which one kind evolved into another. Genesis 1 recounts God’s supernatural creation of the universe and earth’s biosphere. Subsequently, Genesis 2 starts by saying, “Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them." Consequently, Dr.
    [Show full text]