Evangelicals divided over evolution

Philadelphia Inquirer ^ | 30 May 2005 | Paul Nussbaum

[PatrickHenry]

Can God and evolution coexist?

For many evangelical Christians, the debate over teaching evolution in public schools touches a vital spiritual nerve. Some see evolution as a path to perdition, while others see it as a crowning example of God's handiwork.

A legal battle in Dover, Pa., over the teaching of evolution and "intelligent design" has focused new attention on the issue, as have recent proposals in Kansas to change how evolution is taught there.

For David Wilcox, a biology professor at Eastern University, an evangelical college in St. Davids, the challenge is to teach students that it's possible to embrace evolution "without intellectual schizophrenia."

"Frequently, they've been taught that evolution is another way of saying atheism, and they just shut it out," said Wilcox, author of God and Evolution: A Faith-Based Understanding. "They say, 'Why do I have to learn this stuff - don't you know that God hates science?' "

"We have to make them wake up and smell the coffee. God doesn't hate science - he invented it. We try to get them to see that evolution happened and it's not so scary... that evolution is the way God did it."

"Evolutionary theists" such as Wilcox are part of a broader effort by the scientific establishment to defend evolution against advocates of creationism, "intelligent design," and other concepts that challenge all or parts of the theory of natural selection.

Evangelical Christians, sometimes portrayed as monolithic in their opposition to evolution, are as divided as much of the rest of the nation.

"No topic in the world of science and Christianity has created the intensity of discussion and disharmony with evangelicals as the source of biological diversity," says the American Scientific Affiliation, an organization of scientists who are Christians. "Today's spirited discussion often pits Christian vs. Christian and scientist vs. scientist."

The nation's leading science organizations and the vast majority of scientists accept the theory of evolution as the explanation for the origin of all living things, but Americans in general are much less convinced.

Offered three explanations for the origin of humans in a CBS News/New York Times poll six months ago, 13 percent of respondents said they believed "we evolved from less-advanced life-forms over millions of years, and God did not directly guide this process." Twenty-seven percent believed "we evolved from less-advanced life-forms over millions of years, but God guided this process." And 55 percent believed "God created us in our present form." The poll, which questioned 885 people, had a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

Evangelicals who are "young Earth" fundamentalists dismiss evolution and subscribe to a literal interpretation of the Genesis account of creation, believing Earth is less than 10,000 years old. They often see the teaching of evolution as undermining Christianity and paving the way to immorality.

"What you believe about where you came from directly affects your worldview," said Ken Ham, president of Answers in Genesis, a fundamental creationist organization that is building a 50,000-square-foot Creation Museum in Petersburg, Ky. "If you can use man's ideas to reinterpret the book of Genesis, then why not use man's ideas to reinterpret morality?"

One of the newest wrinkles in a debate that has percolated ever since Charles Darwin published his On the Origin of Species in 1859 is "intelligent design." That is the concept at the heart of the battle in Dover, 25 miles south of Harrisburg.

Eleven parents have filed a federal lawsuit to stop the Dover school board from requiring biology teachers to present "intelligent design" as an alternative to evolution. The parents say intelligent design is a religious argument and teaching it violates a 1987 U.S. Supreme Court ruling against teaching creationism as science. [Edwards vs Aguillard . ]

Intelligent design holds that natural selection cannot explain all of the complex developments observed in nature and that an unspecified intelligent designer must be involved. Its adherents say it is a scientific, not a religious, concept based on scientific observations, although they acknowledge its theological implications.

Michael Behe, a biochemistry professor at Lehigh University in Bethlehem and the author of Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, is an intelligent-design proponent and is scheduled to be one of the expert witnesses for the Dover school board when the case goes to trial in the fall.

He says religion is "clearly why [intelligent design] evokes such emotion... . People think it will support their religious views. It's not just another issue of science. If it were, no one would care."

Christian supporters of evolution say intelligent design, while rejecting "young Earth" beliefs, seems to require periodic intervention by the designer.

Kenneth R. Miller, a professor of biology at Brown University, is a Catholic and an ardent proponent of evolution and opponent of intelligent design. The author of Finding Darwin's God, he is to be an expert witness for the parents in the Dover case. [The Flagellum Unspun: The Collapse of "Irreducible Complexity," Kenneth R. Miller. Critique of Behe.]

"I think there is a God, and he is the creator of the universe," Miller said. "But the God of the intelligent-design movement is way too small... . In their view, he designed everything in the world and yet he repeatedly intervenes and violates the laws of his own creation.

"Their God is like a kid who is not a very good mechanic and has to keep lifting the hood and tinkering with the engine."

In New Jersey and Pennsylvania, as in most states, school districts are required to teach evolution as part of the science curriculum.

In Pennsylvania, "school districts may inform students of the existence of particular religious viewpoints when the information in conveyed for a secular and educational purpose and is presented objectively," according to Bethany Yenner, an Education Department spokeswoman. "Under no circumstance may an educator or a school district offer opinions on religious viewpoints."

In New Jersey, students "could look at how a variety of religions view a scientific theory," noted Jon Zlock, an Education Department spokesman. "Obviously, more than one religious viewpoint should be explored. It should be done objectively. One religious point of view should not be stressed above others."

Many evangelical Protestants, like many Catholics and other Christians, argue that faith and science complement each other and need not collide over evolution.

The scientific establishment is stepping up its efforts to present evolution as something apart from, not a threat to, religion.

"It's not science vs. religion - that misses the point entirely," said Jay Labov, senior adviser for education and communication for the National Academy of Sciences. "Science cannot begin to look into the supernatural. That's beyond the realm of science."

The president of the National Academy, Bruce Alberts, sent a letter in March to all members of the academy, urging them "to confront the increasing challenges to the teaching of evolution in public schools; your help may be needed in your state soon." [Letter from Bruce Alberts on March 4, 2005. ]

The academy has gathered the signatures of more than 4,000 Christian clergy, including evangelicals, supporting evolution as "a foundational scientific truth." The clergy, in the letter, "ask that science remain science and that religion remain religion, two very different, but complementary, forms of truth."

But more collisions between the two seem certain.

"If you think there are issues with school boards now, there are going to be a lot more," said Ham, of Answers in Genesis. "Wait till we get the museum finished - you haven't seen anything yet."

[<1/1,000,000th%]

And post 300!!

[Blogger]

True science, no. Man-made reaching for anything-but-God-to-whom-I-am-accountable, yes.

The difference is not "this is my opinion" and "this is your opinion". What does the text SAY. It its normal natural sense, it is 6 twenty four hour days and I don't care if Moses himself wanted to muse about it. If he meant periods of time, there were words for that. When the Bible makes common sense, seek no other sense. It says 6 days, it means 6 days, it qualifies those days with morning and evening so they are literal days. This is true whether you call it "opinion" or not. It would be true if nobody believed it because God inspired the writers to write it. He was the eyewitness on the scene and should know how long he took to create the planet.

Unfortunately, I see you will not accept common sense and want to use the old out of "that's just your opinion." Sorry, it is what it SAYS. It may also be my opinion. But someone who wants to claim it says something other than 6 days is either blind or an idiot.

[backslacker]

Blogger already stated that the qualifiers 'morning' and 'evening' force the word 'day' (yom, Strongs H3117) to mean literal day, not a figurative meaning like an unspecified age.

Gen 2:2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.
Gen 2:3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.

So how long a period of time is this seventh day, the Sabbath?

Heb 11:3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

[Seven_0]

But someone who wants to claim it says something other than 6 days is either blind or an idiot.

"The thought of a ruined condition of the earth succeeding its original creation...is required by the typical view" (F. W. Grant).

Jer 4:23-26 I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was without form, and void; and the heavens, and they had no light. I beheld the mountains, and, lo, they trembled, and all the hills moved lightly. I beheld, and, lo, there was no man, and all the birds of the heavens were fled. I beheld, and, lo, the fruitful place was a wilderness, and all the cities thereof were broken down at the presence of the LORD, and by his fierce anger.

Do you think that the fall of Satan occured before Adam was Created? This passage from Jerimiah seems to be refering to a time before God said "let there be light."

Do you have an opinion on this?

[razorbak]

"Well then you're left with the problem that God really went out of his way to deceptively make it look like evolution occured."

Yes, of course. Who could look at our universe and our world and possibly see the evidence of intelligent design [sarcasm on].

Patrick Henry (1736-1799), five-time Governor of Virginia, whose "Give me liberty or give me death" speech has made him immortal, said: "It cannot be emphasized too strongly" nor too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. . . . " He defined religion, like many others of our Founders, thus: 'That religion, or duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it. . . ."

[wyattearp]

Independent Fundamental Baptist should follow the doctrine laid out in the new testament.

All of it? Women must wear head coverings in church? Women must remain silent in church? All of it?

Pauline doctrine is very detailed and specific. I'll check out the Independent Fundamental Baptist church, but I very much doubt that they follow it "to the letter".

[The Red Zone]

You have plants created on one day and Sun on the next.

At least try to understand what old earth creationist doctrine says before you go criticizing it. This event is when the clouds clear and the Sun (which had already been shining) becomes visible as a sign from the surface of the earth. The narrative doesn't say the Sun was 'created' at that moment.

[dread78645]

XenuDidit place mark

[DocRock]

I've been a member of an Independent Fundamental Baptist Church for 18 years. The women are not required to wear a head covering, but they do remain silent in the service. You should visit one near you and see if they are doctrinally accurate.

[Just mythoughts]

Ah what standing does this leave Peter when Peter wrote in IIPeter 3:2 (the whole chapter is very telling about Genesis and the creation)?

verse 8: But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing,

that ONE DAY is with the LORD as a THOUSAND years, and a THOUSAND years as one day.

[PatrickHenry]

300 should have been mine. [Grumble, grumble ...]

[Blogger]

Was Peter making a statement about creation? No. Was he speaking literally? No. And besides, even if he was, "A Day with the Lord is as a Thousand years and a Thousand years as a day cancels itself out in literal time." Not a good argument.

[Blogger]

And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: 15And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. 16And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

Sounds like a new creation to me. Don't lecture me. Your philosophy is inconsistent with the Word's clear meaning on the page. Christians, do you realize the damage you do to Scripture when you try to fit Genesis 1-3 into the scientific model (which is fallible by the way)?

[Just mythoughts]

"Was Peter making a statement about creation? No. Was he speaking literally? No. And besides, even if he was, "A Day with the Lord is as a Thousand years and a Thousand years as a day cancels itself out in literal time." Not a good argument."


I would suggest you read the whole chapter because Peter is very clear about what he is speak of.

He even gives a picture of Genesis 1:1 and 2 in which it is clearly declared that the heavens and earth were created AND then there was an event in which caused the earth to become void and without form.

Peter calls it the world that WAS, that flooded and perished, NOT talking about Noah's flood as Peter does in the previous chapter.

Peter also refers to the heavens and earth which are NOW would be kept in store, reserved unto fire not a flood.

This is not an argument rather rightly dividing the WORD.

Jeremiah describes a flood wherein NO MAN was left, that is not describing Noah's flood.

When was Satan's overthrow and when were the souls created that a third of them followed Satan, and a third couldn't decide which side to take, and a third stood against Satan??????

Paul sure took a lot of time describing what he called "predestined" when did this predestination take place????

And why would the Heavenly Father say that Jacob He loved and Esau He hated before they were ever born, while still in the womb. There is a reason why that declaration was made!!!!

[malakhi]

What does the text SAY.

What you think the text SAYS is ALWAYS a matter of interpretation. It is unavoidable.

Unfortunately, I see you will not accept common sense

It is "common sense" to me that Genesis 1 is not a literal account.

It says 6 days, it means 6 days, it qualifies those days with morning and evening so they are literal days.

Since Genesis 1 does not record the creation of the sun until the 4th day, that might be some indication that the meaning of "evening", "morning" and "day" in Genesis 1:5 is something other than literal. How can there be a literal 24-hour day without the sun?

[malakhi]

Blogger already stated that the qualifiers 'morning' and 'evening' force the word 'day' (yom, Strongs H3117) to mean literal day, not a figurative meaning like an unspecified age.

See the last two sentences of my #315.

So how long a period of time is this seventh day, the Sabbath?

Since this is figurative (do you really think God needs rest?), it is meaningless to speculate on the 'actual duration' of the 'seventh day' in Genesis 1.

[malakhi]

The narrative doesn't say the Sun was 'created' at that moment.

Actually, it does.

And God made the two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night; and the stars. (Genesis 1:16)

[malakhi]

when you try to fit Genesis 1-3 into the scientific model (which is fallible by the way)?

Do you think that your interpretation of scripture is infallible?

[Blogger]

Again, you twist and/or misunderstand what I am saying. I don't believe it because I believe my opinion is so wonderful. I believe it because that is what it SAYS. I am not infallible. God is. He inspired Moses to write the Pentateuch. What kind of God would confuse his people by using the word "days" with the qualifiers "morning and evening" if he really meant millions of years without one morning and one evening. Rationally speaking, I have more of a leg to stand on than you. More importantly, biblically speaking I do. I don't give a rip what man says. God's word makes sense at the surface and I don't let man's pseudo-scientific notions reinterpret it for me. I'm not going to argue this with you any more. You choose to believe something other than the surface of the text and excuse it because everyone has opinions. If that is the case, why believe ANYTHING? Truth exists, because it emanates from God Himself who is unchanging and infallible. It exists whether you believe it or whether I believe it. It is not dependent upon opinion. It is God's truth and is therefore true period.

[Blogger]

Absolutely false. The chapter doesn't have anything to do with creationism. It has to do with Christ's return. The whole thing.

Here is the chapter. My comments in brackets.

2 Peter 3
1This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance:
{Peter is writing a letter to a specific group of Christians he refers to as "beloved"}

2That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour:

3Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,

4And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.
{The subject he is speaking of here...not creationism but the return of the Lord. Not the days of creation, but the days until his return.}


5For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:

6Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: {I do not see how this is not referring to Noah, particularly with the previous verses. Noah was mocked when he said God was going to send punishment. He was scoffed at. 120 years he labored without a single convert. Peter is referring to the time of Noah and when the world that was was destroyed by water}

7But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. {Again a reference to God's promise to Noah to never destroy the world by water again. Next time, it will be as by fire}

8But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. {Not even anywhere near to discussing the 6 days of creation. It is a statement about how time itself is not the issue with God. It may seem long to us [the wait for His return] but in God's economy it is less than a blip on the map}

9The Lord is not slack concerning his promise,{What promise? The promise to return} as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

10But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. {Again, referring to Jesus's return. Not creationism}

11Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness,

12Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?

13Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.

14Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless.

15And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;

16As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

17Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness. {one error of such is trying to fit billions of years into the first few chapters of Genesis and making the Bible fit the latest "scientific" trends}

18But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen.