Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Augustine's Origin of Species - How the great theologian might weigh in on the Darwin debate.
Christianity Today ^ | May 8, 2009 | Alister McGrath

Posted on 05/12/2009 7:50:24 AM PDT by Matchett-PI

This year marks the 200th anniversary of Charles Darwin's birth and the 150th of the publication of his On the Origin of Species. For some, such as Richard Dawkins, Darwinism has been elevated from a provisional scientific theory to a worldview­an outlook on reality that excludes God, firmly and permanently. Others have reacted strongly against the high priests of secularism. Atheism, they argue, simply uses such scientific theories as weapons in its protracted war against religion.

They also fear that biblical interpretation is simply being accommodated to fit contemporary scientific theories. Surely, they argue, the Creation narratives in Genesis are meant to be taken literally, as historical accounts of what actually happened. Isn't that what Christians have always done? Many evangelicals fear that innovators and modernizers are abandoning the long Christian tradition of faithful biblical exegesis. They say the church has always treated the Creation accounts as straightforward histories of how everything came into being. The authority and clarity of Scripture ­themes that are rightly cherished by evangelicals­seem to be at stake.

These are important concerns, and the Darwin anniversaries invite us to look to church history to understand how our spiritual forebears dealt with similar issues.

Letting Scripture Speak

North African bishop Augustine of Hippo (354–430) had no skin in the game concerning the current origins controversies. He interpreted Scripture a thousand years before the Scientific Revolution, and 1,500 before Darwin's Origin of Species. Augustine didn't "accommodate" or "compromise" his biblical interpretation to fit new scientific theories. The important thing was to let Scripture speak for itself.

[snip]

(Excerpt) Read more at christianitytoday.com ...


TOPICS: History; Religion & Culture; Religion & Science; Theology
KEYWORDS: darwin; religion; science; scientism
"...Evangelicals, after all, believe in the infallibility of Scripture, not the infallibility of its interpreters. ..."

"....This twofold focus on the Creation allows us to read Genesis in a way that affirms that God created everything from nothing, in an instant. However, it also helps us affirm that the universe has been created with a capacity to develop, under God's sovereign guidance.

Thus, the primordial state of creation does not correspond to what we presently observe. For Augustine, God created a universe that was deliberately designed to develop and evolve. The blueprint for that evolution is not arbitrary, but is programmed into the very fabric of creation. God's providence superintends the continuing unfolding of the created order. .."

"Earlier Christian writers noted how the first Genesis Creation narrative speaks of the earth and the waters "bringing forth" living creatures. They concluded that this pointed to God's endowing the natural order with a capacity to generate living things. Augustine takes this idea further: God created the world complete with a series of dormant powers, which were actualized at appropriate moments through divine providence.

Augustine argues that Genesis 1:12 implies that the earth received the power or capacity to produce things by itself: "Scripture has stated that the earth brought forth the crops and the trees causally, in the sense that it received the power of bringing them forth."

Where some might think of the Creation as God's insertion of new kinds of plants and animals readymade into an already existing world, Augustine rejects this as inconsistent with the overall witness of Scripture. Rather, God must be thought of as creating in that very first moment the potencies for all the kinds of living things to come later, including humanity. ..."

"...Augustine would have rejected any idea of the development of the universe as a random or lawless process. For this reason, Augustine would have opposed the Darwinian notion of random variations, insisting that God's providence is deeply involved throughout. The process may be unpredictable. But it is not random. .."

1 posted on 05/12/2009 7:50:25 AM PDT by Matchett-PI
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Matchett-PI

>>...Augustine would have rejected any idea of the development of the universe as a random or lawless process. For this reason, Augustine would have opposed the Darwinian notion of random variations, insisting that God’s providence is deeply involved throughout. The process may be unpredictable. But it is not random. ..<<

No one says evolution is random. It is stochastic. I am not sure that “random” versus “unpredictable” is anything more than semantics anyway.


2 posted on 05/12/2009 7:55:32 AM PDT by freedumb2003 (Communism comes to America: 1/20/2009. Keep your powder dry, folks. Sic semper tyrannis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

Alister McGrath is Professor of Theology, Ministry, and Education at King’s College, London, and holds a D.Phil. from Oxford University in molecular biophysics. This article has been adapted from his 2009 Gifford Lectures, newly published as A Fine-Tuned Universe: The Quest for God in Science and Theology (Westminster John Knox). bttt


3 posted on 05/12/2009 7:55:46 AM PDT by Matchett-PI (The worst of the pirates are in D.C. We must send them AND the permanent "staffers" back home.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Matchett-PI

bump for later


4 posted on 05/12/2009 7:57:09 AM PDT by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Matchett-PI
1,500 before Darwin's Origin of Species

It's always quite frustrating when media outlets truncate the title of Darwin's seminal work to just "Origin of Species".

5 posted on 05/12/2009 8:07:29 AM PDT by Cletus.D.Yokel (FreepMail me if you want on the Bourbon ping list!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Matchett-PI

“The process may be unpredictable. But it is not random. ..”

In science random means unpredictable.


6 posted on 05/12/2009 8:20:22 AM PDT by Varda
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003

Our interpretation of Scripture changes as we receive new information. Our understanding of the Old Testament is very different pre and post Jesus.


7 posted on 05/12/2009 8:24:08 AM PDT by DManA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Matchett-PI

Got news for her: Augustine believed in a young Earth.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf102.iv.XII.10.html

“They are deceived, too, by those highly mendacious documents which profess to give the history of many thousand years, though, reckoning by the sacred writings, we find that not 6000 years have yet passed.”

Watching these theistic evolutionist lapdogs go through these retarded mental gymnastics to satisfy their atheist materialist masters is rather disgusting. Augustine is no friend of evolutionists.


8 posted on 05/12/2009 8:33:05 AM PDT by Parody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003
No one says evolution is random. It is stochastic. I am not sure that “random” versus “unpredictable” is anything more than semantics anyway.

Randomness is an illusion. We simply do not yet understand the mathematics well enough to see a pattern, so we assign random events to chance.

9 posted on 05/12/2009 8:43:06 AM PDT by Ditto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Ditto

>>Randomness is an illusion. We simply do not yet understand the mathematics well enough to see a pattern, so we assign random events to chance.

Exactly — that is why stochastic is the proper name for the process.


10 posted on 05/12/2009 9:06:28 AM PDT by freedumb2003 (Communism comes to America: 1/20/2009. Keep your powder dry, folks. Sic semper tyrannis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Parody

Read the whole article. She plainly states that Augustine believed in a young earth.


11 posted on 05/12/2009 11:50:41 AM PDT by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003
No one says evolution is random. It is stochastic. I am not sure that “random” versus “unpredictable” is anything more than semantics anyway.

It isn't. But then neither is "stochastic" versus "random".

12 posted on 05/12/2009 1:28:49 PM PDT by Zero Sum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Cletus.D.Yokel

Do you want them to refer to it as, “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life?” Even Darwin himself had it shortened to simply “On the Origin of Species” by the 6th edition.

It’s standard practice to shorten book titles to a more familiar handle. Hence, we speak of “Robinson Crusoe,” rather than “The Life and Strange Surprizing Adventures of Robinson Crusoe, Of York, Mariner: Who lived Eight and Twenty Years, all alone in an un-inhabited Island on the Coast of America, near the Mouth of the Great River of Oroonoque; Having been cast on Shore by Shipwreck, wherein all the Men perished but himself. With An Account how he was at last as strangely deliver’d by Pyrates.” (Yes, I cut and pasted the real titles out of Wikipedia.)


13 posted on 10/29/2014 7:01:57 AM PDT by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson