The Stealth Geek Collective blog is light-hearted. We talk about tech, video games, science, sci-fi, etc. The blog isn’t meant for matters of faith or belief. However, today is Charles Darwin’s Birthday and with his name, the topic is certain to arise. Some people celebrate Darwin’s B’day, some curse it. His name alone stirs controversy and finger pointing. I recently had a friend report to me that scientists were evil and that evolution is a “lie from the devil.”
Today at work I had a lengthy discussion with an 11 year old and her mother about evolution. They said you could not be a Christian and believe in evolution. When I told them I was a follower of Christ and that I did accept evolution, they looked at me as if I’d said 2 + 2 = 7.
I wrote my evolution-dismissing friend a letter describing my position on the subject. I feel it’s well written (with some content borrowed from Biologos.org) and wanted to see what you guys though about it. Feel free not to read it if it’s boring to you.
Lies from the evil one….Now, to be sure there are plenty of lies spewed forth from the evil one. Agreed. And let me say, I could be wrong about a number of things. I absolutely don’t have all the answers nor do I claim to. I can only see the world as the Lord has revealed to me, and that is through His Word, my senses, and through scientific discovery. We all know that scientific “fact” is a bit of a misnomer since many theories and ideas get overturned with newfound evidence of the contrary. So, there is always that. Perhaps that is why wisdom of the Lord is more concrete than this haze of life through which we walk through grasping at straws of knowledge. Having said that, when we spoke last and you proceeded to devalue and denigrate knowledge and science, I couldn’t help but imagine what Galileo Galilei must have felt as the church found him “vehemently suspect of heresy” when he disclosed his support of the Copernican idea of heliocentrism.
During Galileo’s lifetime, the people used the Word of God like a text book, citing the verses Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10, and 1 Chronicles 16:30 which include text stating that ”the world is firmly established, it cannot be moved.” In the same way, Psalm 104:5 says, ”the LORD set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved.” Further, Ecclesiastes 1:5 states that ”And the sun rises and sets and returns to its place.” It was VERY clear to them what scripture had to say about the physics of the earth and the sun. To them, the earth did not move and subsequently everything else revolved around it. Today, we know that the church was wrong and Galileo was right. Job 38:13 tells us that the earth has “edges” and Christ tells us we will be His witnesses “to the ends of the earth” in Acts 1:7-9. Reading these passages, Biblically we used to think the earth was flat (with ends to it). So do we call the Bible into question when we agree with the Greek astronomers who said that the earth was spherical? No, because we are not to take the words scientifically literally. They were not meant to be as such. Yet the church at the time made the scientific mistake of doing so. To disagree with them was heresy (and it seems to be the same way now in America). It was considered non-biblical to believe these things. But we know for aan absolute fact that this solar system is heliocentric and that the earth is round. Now that we know this, we don’t discount the Word of God, but rather we change how we read it. How we interpret it.
So what was the deal back then? Well, I think the church lost track of the fact that the Bible is not a textbook. Rather, the Word is the Revelation of Jesus Christ in narrative form. When we read Scripture, we should always look to how it points to Christ, as Brennan Manning would say. I think it’s safe to say that Galileo took Augustine’s position on Scripture: not to take every passage literally.
The two different creation accounts in Genesis 1 and 2 set the precedent for readers to be openminded to truths that run deeper than historical accounts and to be wary of interpreting every word in a scientifically literal way. In Genesis 1, God creates the plants, marine animals, birds, land animals and then man and woman together (Genesis 1:1-2:3). In Genesis 2, however, God creates man first and then plants, land animals and birds and finally woman from Adam’s rib (Genesis 2:4-2:25). Clearly, the order of the creation differs in these two accounts. Also God creates night and day on the first day in Genesis 1:3-5 but it’s not until the fourth day in Genesis 1:16 that He creates the sun and moon. It’s these things that lead me to believe we’re not supposed to take these chapters literally.
Biologos.org I think says it well: “Studying the context of Genesis 1 and 2 truly helps us understand the foundational theology of Genesis rather than detract us. These passages lay the foundation of biblical understanding which tells us who God is, what the world is and what it means to be human. Through these passages we know that God is outside of the world and has total control; the universe was not created through a cosmic battle as other creation myths of the day claim. God is not an abstract concept but a personal being; his spirit hovers over the waters. He is also the consummate artist that brings beauty from ugliness and order from disorder.”
Also, God was using their way of thinking about the material world in order to communicate his revelation concerning the functional world. When the Bible talks about thinking with the heart, we discount the material statement because we understand that the Bible is not communicating physiology. God has accommodated their material way of thinking to make the functional point.
Many people argue about evolution, but those opposed to it rarely, if ever, give any scientific evidence for why people shouldn’t accept it. Granted, I still view evolution as a theory (with holes such as the Cambrian explosion mystery), but I’m not vehemently opposed to the idea since I don’t see much danger to our faith in it.
One of the reasons I’m open to the idea of evolution is that so much of what we find points to a really old universe. Take my hobby astronomy for example. When I look through my telescope and see the Andromeda galaxy, I’m looking at a galaxy that is 2 million light years away. That means it takes light 2 million years to traverse empty space from that galaxy and reach my telescope. So I am not seeing that galaxy as it is, I am really seeing that galaxy as it was 2 million years ago. Red shift of the light tells us how far away objects in the universe are from us. It’s accurate, it’s real. If it wasn’t, our deep-spacecraft would never make it to their destinations, and yet they continually do.
I have had friends tell me “Well, you know God could have created everything with apparent age to it.” But we know that God “is not a God of confusion.” 1 Corinthians 14:33. If he made everything to look like it’s billions of years old, why in the world would we criticize scientists for disclosing merely what they observe? I don’t think God would do that, so I’m left to believe that we’re in a universe that is scientifically billions of years old.
What does time matter anyway, for we know that “For a thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night.” Psalm 90:4
I think this is a wonderful discussion. But I think we should really dig deep and not have “blind faith” which really isn’t a Biblical idea. As a matter of fact I think the Word discourages it: Proverbs 14:15 says “A simple man believes anything, but a prudent man gives thoughts to his steps.” and again in 1 Corinthians 13:11: “When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me.”
And honestly when we get down to it, Job 38:4 says it best: “Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell me if you have understanding.”
