This is a direct copy of a blog on www.myspace.com/dr_clairet that I had up a while ago but I think it might get more of a response over here... Maybe not though!
So. It's been a while. I've been reading. Some of the new words I learnt while reading: tacitly, paradigm, cosmology. These may crop up in the blog, I don't know. Anyway, before we get started, I'd like to quote a very wise two year old girl who called out to her mother during a recent parental spat about cleaning out a cupboard of cleaning equipment (ironic but true), "Daddy's just doing the best that he can do!" And so am I- here goes...
I thought I would address the issue of whether one can be a Christian and believe in evolution. Dawkins doesn't think so, preferring "honest fundamentalists" to appeasing scientists from the "Neville Chamberlain" school of thought (The God Delusion, p. 66-69), thus equating religious believers to Hitler (I mean, I don't even have a moustache (most of the time)). Neither does the late great Henry Morris, author of The Genesis Flood (1960) and one of the founding members of the recent young earth creationist movement who says that declaring oneself to be a Christian evolutionist is akin to being a Christian thief, adding: "Christians can be inconsistent and illogical about many things but that doesn't make them right." (King of Creation, cited in Rebuilding the Matrix, p. 289). John Woodmorappe in his book, Noah's Ark: A Feasability Study, repeatedly refers to those Christians who believe in an old earth and/or evolution as "compromising evangelicals".
Of course I have chosen provocatively to highlight the two extreme poles of opinion. I believe it is totally consistent to be a committed Christian, ascribing to the authority of Scripture and an excellent scientist, subscribing to the view of an ancient universe and biological evolution. And having removed my own blinkers, I have discovered a host of other philosophers, theologians and scientists (Christians and atheists) who agree*. In fact Denis Alexander states that "The Darwinian theory of evolution ... is essentially devoid of either religious or moral significance, and those who try to derive such significance from it are mistaken" (Rebuilding the Matrix, p. 291).
What about Genesis 1-3, the Creation story? To my great surprise I discovered that there has been considerable debate about the interpretation of the creation story in Genesis since records began. Is it allegorical? Is it literal? Augustine and Origen (theologians in the fourth and third centuries, respectively) wrote considerably about this. John Calvin in the sixteenth century also wrote that he believed God used "baby talk" in the Bible to make it comprehensible to all peoples at all times. "The whole point of scripture is to bring us to a knowledge of Jesus Christ- and having come to know him (and all that this implies), we should come to a halt and not expect to learn more. Scripture... does not, and was never intended, to provide us with an infallible repository of astronomical and medical information. The natural sciences are thus effectively emancipated for theological restrictions." (John Calvin, cited in Coming to Peace with Science, p. 34-35) Note that this was written in 1534, well before the ancient age of the earth and the theory of evolution had even been considered.
What is clear about the Bible is that it uses the language of appearance; it does not claim to be a scientific text book. If one is to be consistent in taking Genesis 1-3 absolutely literally then we should consider the moon to be a light, when it is in fact a mirror (Gen 1:16 http://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=two+lights)
According to scholars such as Ernest Lucas and Gordon Wenham, one of the best ways to understand Genesis 1-11 (the pre-Abrahamic history) is in light of the contemporary documents of the day, in which case, Genesis reads as an excellent polemic against these. For example, note the very few occasions where the word "created" is used in Genesis 1 http://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=created+ They refer exclusively to God creating the heavens and the earth (I might add, nothing here to contradict the theory of the Big Bang), the creation of man and woman in the image of God (not the physical bodies but the spiritual part of us) and the creation of the great sea monsters- what?! Why would the writer have added this in? Light is shed on this from the discovery of contemporary creation stories from Mesopotamia, where it was written that the gods had to fight and subdue the sea monsters before the world could be created. The author of Genesis appears to be aware of these stories and seems to be making the point that the true God had no need to fight these sea monsters (for the record, not dinos or Nessie, presumably giant squids or whatever)- He created them. Of course the readers of Genesis (or listeners, they probably couldn't all read), would have been well aware of contemporary stories and understood the implications here but it involves a little bit of digging for 21st century know-it-alls to fully comprehend.
I could go on either discussing the Genesis account or how the theory of evolution does not disprove or negate the need for God or the roots of the creationist movements but I don't want to bore you! If you stuck with the blog this far, well done and thanks! I'm happy to research and write about any related issues or recommend books for further reading on the various topics.
*Francis Collins, John Polkinghorne, Michael Ruse, Darrell Falk, Ernest Lucas, John Lennox, Alister McGrath, Simon Conway Morris...
