Evolution & Creationism

For all believers, evolution is something that has to be dealt with in one way or another. We need to decide how we feel about it, and how it relates to the Bible. After reading The Language of God by Francis Collins, I became aware that I had no idea what I really believed, not just about evolution, but really in general. I had always grown up in the church, but I really hadn't put too much time into my faith, and looking back I realize I was hung up on the thought that maybe God was just "wishful thinking." Sometimes still, it almost seems too good to be true. Dealing with this, which all started with the 'debate' of evolution or creationism, has sparked a revived spiritual interest in my life, one where I want to tackle all of these big issues as best I can.

I'm just going to put this out there upfront - I accept evolution. My position is theistic evolution, for multiple reasons - the scientific, logical, as well as biblical. While I withhold full belief in macro-evolution for the time being, I certainly accept the basic premise of evolution. To me, the fact that creatures are able to 'evolve' is incredible, and points to something that desires creatures to survive and improve. All this said, here are the reasons I accept both:

First and foremost, Evolution theory is not a theory in the sense that I have a theory about why the Giants won the Super Bowl. Evolution theory is a theory like Gravitational theory, it's not something in question. If evolution is a complete lie, then the many other fields of science are also in fault. Science is such that nothing can really be known with absolute certainty, but evolution is not in the process of being doubted, especially at the microscopic level. If evolution isn't true, then the question would then become, "Why is there so much evidence to the contrary?" If we are completely secure in our belief in God, adapting to evolution should be the acknowledgement of God's awesome creation process. Obviously, I believe that God had his hand in evolution, guiding it, and most likely helping it to reach the state he wanted it. 

Just a side note. I've read on some peoples blogs that they would have their faith rocked if science confirmed abiogenesis. To me, I believe that we will perhaps find out how it could have happened, even if the odds are rather low. But I would not latch on that as a pillar of faith, because I believe God moves through the natural processes of the earth, instead of just spontaneously creating the first RNA.

I also believe the Bible lends itself to a non-literal creation account. First, in Genesis 1:13:

 "God said, "Let the land sprout with vegetation - every sort of seed-bearing plant, and trees that grow seed-bearing fruit..."" 

This was on the third day of creation, with humans coming on day six. Obviously, this is the order it would have actually happened in natural history. However, in creation account two, we see in Genesis 2:5:

"Neither wild plants nor grains were growing on the earth. For the Lord God had not yet sent rain to water the earth, and there were no people to cultivate the soil."

It then goes on in Genesis 2:7 to say how God formed the man from the dust of the ground. So in the two creation accounts, we see a differing of the order or plant-life/humankind. Some see a gray area to say that perhaps certain types of plants were made in the first creation account, while different plants didn't grow until the second creation account.

Next, we have the story of Cain. If we are to take Adam and Eve as the two literal first human beings, then the world population of humans goes from four to three when Cain kills Abel. In Genesis 4:13, upon hearing his punishment, Cain replies to the Lord,

"My punishment is too great for me to bear. You have banished me from the land and from your presence; you have made me a homeless wanderer. Anyone who finds me will kill me!"

If Adam and Eve are human number one and two, then the only persons that would be there to kill him would be his parents. It seems unimaginable that Cain would fear his parents killing him, and even more so that he would call his parents 'anyone.' This strongly implies there are more than just these three people on the earth. Also, I can't imagine God being okay with his only three prized, image bearing creations going around killing each other. Cain killed Abel, yes, but if Adam and Eve joined in on the action that is a different matter.

Finally, in Genesis 4:17, we find out that Cain gets married, has a son named Enoch, and founded a city, also called Enoch, after his son. First, we are not told that Adam and Eve started having more sons and daughters until later in Genesis, chapter five. So even if we accept that God was fine with Cain marrying his sister, which seems to go against later law, we still have to rearrange the text, and assume it was written non-chronologically to even get a sister into the equation. Finally, it seems the use of the word 'city' would not be used if they were referring to just a gathering of a few huts. And if he did really build a city, who was it for and how did he build it all by himself?

I haven't gone through the other books prior to the patriarchs, but just from this, I see things that make me question if the original intent of the author (assumed to be Moses) was actually as a historical account. To me, it seems to imply that Adam and Eve were not the two first human beings, but perhaps the first two humans that God revealed himself personally to. This is referred to on the BioLogos forum as the Homo Divinus model. If Adam and Eve were real people, it makes much more sense with the genealogies presented to us in Genesis, as well as the New Testament Gospel accounts. Religion at this time was most certainly not monotheistic, but looking back, the three big monotheistic religions of the world today are Abrahamic in their roots, even going back to Adam and Eve. It's hard to say if monotheism would ever have made it's way as the worlds primary form of theism without this connection.

I also don't believe evolution is imposing it's will on the Bible, in the sense that it's forcing people for the first time to reevaluate their position. Over a thousand years before evolution, St. Augustine commented on the allegorical interpretation of Genesis. Here is a summary:

"In "The Literal Interpretation of Genesis" Augustine took the view that everything in the universe was created simultaneously by God, and not in seven calendar days like a plain account of Genesis would require. He argued that the six-day structure of creation presented in the book of Genesis represents a logical framework, rather than the passage of time in a physical way - it would bear a spiritual, rather than physical, meaning, which is no less literal. One reason for this interpretation is the passage in Sirach 18:1, creavit omni simul ("he created all things at once"), which Augustine took as proof that the days of Genesis 1 had to be taken non-literally.Augustine also does not envision original sin as originating structural changes in the universe, and even suggests that the bodies of Adam and Eve were already created mortal before the Fall. Apart from his specific views, Augustine recognizes that the interpretation of the creation story is difficult, and remarks that we should be willing to change our mind about it as new information comes up."

In the end, having all the right answers when it comes to evolution and creation isn't the main goal. Will God hold it against anyone if we interpret the Bible differently? One reason I do worry about the belief in strict creationism has to do with some of the characteristics I see in many atheists. Oftentimes, you see that an atheist was born and raised in a particular faith, only to find out, usually in their late teens or 20's, that their interpretation of the Bible may be at odds with science, or the opinions of others. This oftentimes can cause a complete revolt from religion when their beliefs are held too strictly. I sometimes talk about these kinds of things with my volleyball group on Tuesday nights, and I do so because I'd rather have them think about them now, discussing them in a setting where they know they can trust those around them, then out in the world where someone only wants to crush your faith. To me, that's what I want to try and help others avoid, even if it means challenging your beliefs. We cannot all see the same thing when we read the Bible, which is part of the beauty of it. To some extent, accepting that other interpretations could be right, I believe, lends itself towards flexibility, like St. Augustine remarked.

At most, science can only show us the 'how' of the world, and can help us better understand God's creation. The false dichotomy that exists between science and religion is in my opinion completely unwarranted. In the same way that the church abandoned an earth-centered model of the universe as an interpretation of Psalm 104:5:"You placed the world on its foundation," I believe the church will one day accept evolution as an illumination through science on the original intent of scripture. 

The below link contains good information for those looking to learn about science and the Bible, especially pertaining to creation:

http://biologos.org/questions/evolution-and-the-fall