A Theological Argument For Evolution (Darwinism is Theologically Superior to Creationism)

Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation ^ | March 1986 | George Murphy

[orionblamblam]

> there are only a handful of transitional forms

Incorrect. *every* form is a transitional form. Modern humans are a transitional form. We just don't know yet whether we will transition to another species, several other species... or extinction.

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Your assertions are certainly one school of thought. It is not the orthodoxy of evo, however...

[js1138]

there are only a handful of transitional forms

Every thing that ever lived is a transitional. And there are millions of fossils. Even some that are not obviously either birds or reptiles. Even some that are not obviously land animals or whales.

[orionblamblam]

> It is not the orthodoxy of evo, however...

Yes, it is. Evolutionary theory never assumes that something has evolved as far as it will go. Even critters like cockroaches and sharks and crocodiles, often referred to as "living fossils" because they first showed up in recognizable form hundreds fo milliosn of years ago, have evolved substantially, and continue to do so.

[Dumb_Ox]

Odd how he cites C.S. Lewis on embryological recapitulation. Isn't such embryonic recapitulation mostly disbelieved now? Or has it progressed beyond the sketches of Haeckel?

Teilhard's work is the more attractive because he brings science into contact with a mature Christian spirituality.

Ha! De Chardrin, he of the metaphysics of wishful thinking. I have a hard time taking anybody seriously who takes the de Chardrin fad seriously.

There are of landmines the author neglects in favor of arguing with the straw-minds of pop-fundamentalism. I think his reflections on Original Sin and Death are very faulty. Sin gave a new and terrible meaning to Death? Well, I hate to break it to this guy, but death is damn terrible in itself.

I don't know if he's Catholic, but there is a theological precedent of a future event affecting something in the past: the Immaculate Conception, where Mary was specifically redeemed by the Cross at the time of her conception. And of course, the Redemption itself isn't bound by time. Reasoning from this, perhaps one could say that the first human sin had a retroactive effect on all creation.

But of the most concern to me is his inability to grapple with the precise content of (neo-?)Darwinism: Random mutations promote the survival of an individual of a species and its descendants. Darwinism does not understand this randomness as the kind one would find in a personal being's choices, as God is arbitrary because He has will(arbitrio in Latin). Instead, by "randomness" they mean "chaos." The Darwinian universe is a Heraclitean Flux in which everything flows and nothing abides.

He touches on nominalism by pooh-poohing it, but in fact Darwinian evolution tends to support nominalism by undermining any idea of a stable nature in living things. The effects on the Incarnation, of course, are obvious, for there is no human "nature" for Christ to assume. Likewise, there are no inherent human rights, because humanity is simply the label for a thing-in-flux, namely the genetic code among the human species. I believe Darwinian interpretations can even destroy the place of human reason, with enough bad philosophy.

I'm curious about the mention of how Darwinism undermines Soviet biology. Marx wanted to dedicate one of his works to Darwin, but the latter declined because the former's patent atheism might have scandalized his wife. Frankly, the idea of a species-in-flux and the struggle-for-existence easily feed into Marxist ideology. an individual person might not be completely malleable, but over time and with advanced genetic engineering techniques, the species as a whole is certainly plastic. Watch for a resurrection of this idea in the Transhumanist movement.

[wallcrawlr]

Written by GEORGE L. MURPHY from St. Mark Lutheran Church

http://www.stmark-lutheran.org/

No surprise...this is another fine example of the instruction the flock receives at the Embarrasment to Lutheran Congregations Association (ELCA).

Revelation 4:11
See my profile for info

[trisham]

No surprise...this is another fine example of the instruction the flock receives at the Embarrasment to Lutheran Congregations Association (ELCA).

************

Interesting. This article is from 1986.

[wallcrawlr]

1986...I was still in their grips back then. Freed myself in 1989.

[wallcrawlr]

http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/

George Murphy has been active for many years in helping churches see the relevance of science for faith and to deal with religious issues raised by science and technology. With a Ph.D. in theoretical physics from Johns Hopkins, he taught college science courses for twelve years. He received his M.Div. from Wartburg Seminary, and was pastor of St. Mark Lutheran Church in Tallmadge, Ohio from 1984 till 1999. He is presently a pastoral associate at St. Paul's Episcopal Church in Akron, Ohio and an adjunct faculty member at Trinity Lutheran Seminary in Columbus.

Dr. Murphy has published many papers in physics as well as articles in the science-theology dialogue in Dialog, The Lutheran, Zygon, Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith, and other journals, and writes the “Handiwork” column on issues of science and technology in ministry for Lutheran Partners. His most recent book is The Cosmos in the Light of the Cross (Trinity Press International, 2003). Earlier books are Toward a Christian View of a Scientific World (CSS, 2001), Cosmic Witness (CSS, 1996) and The Trademark of God (Morehouse-Barlow, 1986), which is now out of print. A collection of science fiction story sermons and essays on science fiction and religion is scheduled for publication in 2005.

He has spoken at conferences of clergy and laity, seminaries, and universities, taught television courses on science and religion, served on the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America's Environment Task Force, and is a member of the Steering Committee of the ELCA Alliance on Faith, Science and Technology. Dr. Murphy is also a member of The Immediate Word team which produces a weekly internet resource for preachers.

[frgoff]

Well, except for that otherwise wholly unexplainable fossil record...

Dogmatic statements like this annoy me on both sides of the argument. The fossil record is not wholly unexplainable outside of an evolutionary paradigm. The fossil record is supporting evidence for evolution, not conclusive evidence of evolution.

[JohnnyM]

"Trying to literally interpret Genesis is simply untenable. "

Its unteneble for the theistic evolutionist. Even you believe that the ordering of events in Genesis do not line up with evolution, and that is to your credit, unfortunately, when given the choice between the Word of God and the word of man, you chose man.

This article is an example of the lengths people will go, and many of them dear Christian brothers, to desperately fit evolution into the Bible. His utter scarcity of Scripture to support his "biblical" claims for evolution is a testimony to the futility of his endeavor. He even glosses over the issue of sin, evil, and the fall (one of the key issues in all of Christianity), admitting that his viewpoint does not have a real answer to this question, only hunches.

The wages of sin is death and sin entered the world through Adam, if one believes the Word of God, so how can death exist prior to Adam?

This idea that sin was retroactive to all of creation prior to the "evolution" of man has no biblical support whatsoever, and even he admits that it is only a suggestion that, I would guess, he doesnt even believe.

The Bible and evolution are not compatible. They cannot live in harmony. Belief in evolution is not a requirement for salvation, but many dear brothers and sisters will struggle needlessly in vain to reconcile it with the Word.

JM

[wallcrawlr]

agreed.

He even glosses over the issue of sin, evil, and the fall

This to me is inexcusable...especially from a pastor.

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Uh huh. In the orthodoxy of establishment evo, transitional forms generally refers to forms which establish graduated links between different species. These are kinda, like, rare.

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Your axiom, of course, is that everything is transitional. Of course, this takes a leap of faith, because there is no definitive proof that most existing forms are transitional. I suggest that you put your axiom to the same rigorous test that you demand of your opponents. To apply to the general population, as a whole, an axiomatic argument that, at most, can only be applied (and that even not definitively) to an extremely minute subset of the problem is perhaps not the wisest approach to take.

But as far as transitionals go, you know what I mean. How does the fossil record hold up in showing speciation paths taken? It is well established, at this point in time, that transitional states existing in the record are very rare indeed (and I'm giving people who claim such exist the benefit of the doubt). In fact, they are so rare, when compared to the fossil record as a whole, that they represent a huge problem for general speciation advocates. If macro-evolution is as widespread as advocates would have us believe, there should be a whole lot more transitional forms than have been currently found. In fact, such forms should be so common and overlapping that transitional paths between species should be easily self-evident. Too bad that it isn't.

[orionblamblam]

> The fossil record is not wholly unexplainable outside of an evolutionary paradigm. The fossil record is supporting evidence for evolution, not conclusive evidence of evolution.

Hold up. You're arguing two separate points. I said:
"otherwise wholly unexplainable fossil record"

This does NOT mean that the fossil record is conclusive evidence of evolution (thought it really comes adequately close). What is *does* say is that there is no competing notion out there that adequately deals with the fossil record.

[ValenB4]

Thanks for the ping.

[orionblamblam]

> In the orthodoxy of establishment evo

Where can one sign up for that?

> transitional forms generally refers to forms which establish graduated links between different species. These are kinda, like, rare.

These are kinda, like, everywhere.

[js1138]

It is well established, at this point in time, that transitional states existing in the record are very rare indeed ...

What percentage of the creatures that have ever lived do you suppose have been fossilized, and what percentage of existing fossils do you suppose have been found.

If you dig a hole at random, do you find large numbers of animal bones? If not, why not? Is it because animals have never lived where you are digging, or because the conditions necessary for fossilization are a bit unusual?

[johnnyb_61820]

The best defence of evolution from a theological standpoint, yet it falls short in many areas, specifically ignoring many, many texts from Genesis.

(1) there was no carnivory before the fall -- animals were given plants to eat. The fossil record shows that animals were already eating animals
(2) it was said that before the fall, creation was "Very good", yet we see Dinosaurs with cancer
(3) the sequence of creation is wrong from an evolutionary standpoint
(4) the timing is off -- in Exodus it is quite clear when God said "in six days" that he was not talking figuratively.
(5) the fact of mediation does not imply evolution, specifically since it has kinds, which are then re-gathered during the flood
(6) it leaves no room for the biblical flood in the fossil record. Did a worldwide catastrophe leave no mark?
(7) it still leaves the "soulless hominid" theory intact, which says that man was making tools and war with each other long before Adam. This can't be labelled as "very good".

I fear that the author is ignoring a whole host of evidence that says that special creation is what occurred, as well as the flood. Specifically, that within proposed created kinds there is still widespread hybridization possible, while outside of these kinds there is not. Also it is missing that much of the genome is geared towards modifying itself in adverse situations. Also it misses the "code" aspect of DNA -- that the code specified within the DNA is separated from the DNA itself the same way that any medium is separate from the message it carries. Couple that with the fact that there are a message-reading and message-carrying-out device attached, and there is almost nothing left to believe that nature created us.

So what of the fossil record? It is the burial ground of the flood -- the testament to God's judgment on the world.

[MortMan]

Bookmark