Saving Darwin: How to be a Christian and Believe in Evolution
Like author Karl W. Giberson, I grew up in a strict, fundamentalist home. In retrospect, I had always been a “young-earth creationist”, surrounded by those of like belief, with little reason to question the “truth” of a literal translation of Genesis—the description of a six-day Creation and its account of our origins.
Except…
Information I gleaned from field trips to the Smithsonian museums didn’t really mesh against what I was taught in private school, church, and in my Bob Jones-breed Christian home. Answers from my childhood “experts” seemed flippant, curt, and imminently unsatisfying.
Years later, I met and grew to love my parents-in-law (and before them, my brilliant, well-read, think-outside-the-box husband!). The whole family valued independent thinking and had the utmost respect for science’s contributions to our understanding of our existence. They all encouraged me to explore and test different ways of thinking, much to my growth and amazement. Science, and three people who deeply loved me, quietly tugged at my heart.
But, the icing on the cake came when my pastor preached a sermon titled “Isn’t Creation Just a Myth?”, a clear assault on all that Darwin stood for. You see, my pastor, whom we still greatly respect and study under, called Darwin’s theory of evolution “a religious system” that is “full of lies” on that fateful Sunday. Was my husband angry! For weeks afterwards, I listened to his diatribes. Eventually, he went to talk to our pastor one-one one, and eventually came to some kind of resolution in his own heart and mind on this volatile issue. I had only seen that kind of passion in hard-core fundamentalists before!
So when I saw Giberson’s Saving Darwin at the bookstore, I was chomping at the bit. I longed to resolve the obvious tension playing out in my intellectual and personal life. Besides, the search for Truth should never intimidate us, especially as Christ-followers!
Saving Darwin covers a lot of ground. Giberson begins with an honest assessment of Charles Darwin’s paradigms and the ultimate break in his faith (which had absolutely nothing to do with his brand of science). He then moves comprehensively to an in-depth look at evolution’s dark side, its abuses and extremes (think genocide) and slips easily into an anecdotal recount of the Scopes “Monkey Trial”. In the blink of an eye, he leads us though a systematic dismantling of The Genesis Flood, a fundamentalist’s “science” book, co-authored by one my home-town’s Biblical heroes, John C. Whitcomb. Giberson clearly demonstrates that the creation/evolution argument is a culture, rather than an academic war, for evolution bears out its scientific validity in a number of disciplines including biology, geology, genetics, and paleontology. On the other hand, young-earth creationists have virtually no support from mainstream scientists and in fact, find themselves a bit isolated (and conveniently academically myopic), with a small, but fiercely dedicated army of anti-evolutionists.
Few books have challenged my faith, my core beliefs, and my intellect more than this one. Many times, I found myself nodding with a clear understanding of Giberson’s science, immediately accompanied by stabs of fundamentalist offense and guilt. In the end, however, I could find nothing in this work that contradicted Jesus’ story of redemption for His fallen people. (That being said, I don’t know that I could find much in this work that disagrees with any of the world’s three major religions.) Giberson repeatedly warns both “sides” of the creation/evolution battle that the existing dichotomy between their theories is “wrong” and that the current polarized positions “are not the only two options”. He compels his readers to re-work their understanding of God’s creativity and our place in the universe to match what can be empirically studied. And he warns against twisting the Bible’s ancient wisdom “to speak to a modern issue it never intended to address.”
On a minor note, Giberson never fully engages his reader on an emotional level, other than his brushes with wry humor. This man is clearly a scholar, not a salesman. He does take one brief rabbit trail into his own personal belief system. He writes, “As a purely practical matter, I have compelling reasons to believe in God.” He then describes his parents as “deeply committed Christians”, his wife and children as “believing in God”, most of his friends as “believers”, and his job that he loves at “a Christian college”. His relationship with our Creator never reaches much beyond his summation that “abandoning belief in God would be disruptive, sending my life completely off the rails.” That’s all? That is the basis for his faith? I wanted more.
In his conclusion, Giberson offers the book’s powerful redemption, an admission that won me over: “Perhaps the unfolding of history includes a steady infusion of divine creativity under the scientific radar. Perhaps the meaning we encounter in so many different places and so many different ways is not simply an accident of our biology, but a hint that the universe is more than particles and their interactions.” My belief in Jesus’ plan for our universe’s reconciliation and the wonder and mystery of His methods remain fully in tact, but will be, hereafter, combined with a respect for modern academia and science’s advances.
Saving Darwin will make a great gift for my dear father-in-law; he will find it brilliant and engaging. I probably won’t, however, buy it for my dear pastor. On second thought… it might be just the challenge he needs.
Posted on June 1, 2009 4:30 PM
Comments
I am puzzled by several things. If you believe in God, why is it a such a stretch that the creative process spelled out in Genesis be such a problem? I mean really, why work so hard to re-interpit what so many in the Christian world have interpited as basically six literal days of creation. And that for hundreds of years which would include current scholars. Further, there are MANY reputible scholars who believe and believe they can prove from science that there is literal six days of creation. Matt.19:4"Haven't your read that He who made them from the beginning, made them male and female". God claims to be there at the beginning. The big problem is that you have to work hard to show that what is presented in the bible is either wrong or has been interpided incorrectly over hundreds of years, including supporting evidence the exists today. What is the point? So you can feel better? So you can be in agreement with a vast variety of secular scientists who would do anything to disprove not only the bible, but those who believe in it, and in the process "prove" that God doesn't exist. Or is it that you don't have to deal with the pressure presented by secular critics who make fun of anyone who dare believe in a creator God and that "goofy" six days thing.
The fact is, many of Darwins observations are just that, observations, or better, just speculations. Tom Bethell writing for Harpers magazine (and himself an evolutionist) after extensive research and interviews with evolutionists in different fields concluded,"The theory of evolution has never been falsified. On the other hand it is also surely true that the positive evidence for evolution is very much weaker than most layman imagine, and that many scientests want us to imagine. Perhaps, as Peterson (a paleontologist specializing in fossil fishes) says, that positive evidence is missing entirely."
As Darth Vader said in Star Wars, "I find your lack of faith disturbing". May the FORCE be with you.
Posted by: Greg | June 10, 2009 10:48 PM
Julie thank you for a very personal and intelligently written glimpse into your reaction to "Saving Darwin." I've been doing a lot of my own wrestling with faith lately, not necessarily related to the evolution issue, and I can relate to your struggle to resolve this issue in your mind and heart.
Posted by: Patrick | June 21, 2009 2:43 PM
If it is too much to believe that God made all matter (earth included of course) in six days time, why do you believe that Christ came back from the dead? From the scientific point of view, that's just ignorant. My point is, why can you accept one, but not the other? Both do not make a whole lot of sense when you think about it. It's just not possible. Don't tell God that though. I think he would just smile at you. (Not in a sarcastic way)
Posted by: Matthew Flores | June 22, 2009 9:42 PM
Greg, the search for Truth always strengthens my faith! My questions don't necessarily revolve around a literal six-day Creation. In fact, I am all over it! My big questions are more about the age of Earth, dinosaurs, and the proven existence of evolution (or "adaptation" of animals to their environment) as they relate to the "facts" I'd learned in my childhood.
I can't wait to get to Heaven to figure it all out!
May the Force be with you as well, my friend!
Posted by: Julie![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.burnsidewriterscollective.com/reviews/books/nav-commenters.gif)
|
June 26, 2009 8:53 AM
Not all science is empirically observable science. Evolution, is still a theoretical branch of science at the end of the day. The debate isn't as much between Bible and science for me, as it is the nature of theoretical science claims. There have been deductions created from the data presented by researchers from various scientific fields that Julie mentioned. However, most do not present that the theoretical basis or framework for their interpretations is evolutionary. They simply assume their theoretical position from the start and work out of that scientific ideology. I don't think the theoretical science of origins, which about every branch of science passes claims on, can be reduced to as simple of a theory as evolution. And I am not talking about common genetic variations, and microevolutionary facts. I am speaking of evolution as the understanding of all material progression. It seems highly simplistic and I'm just not able to go there yet. However, much of what evolutionary thought has to offer seems to be applicable to some of what is observable. Unfortunately, it seems to be a scientific dogma that attempts to describe everything. And this is where I think it falls short. But I think us Christ followers would do well to respect each other's placement on this issue, and do our best to seek truth apart from meaningless chatter.
Posted by: nathan | July 6, 2009 11:08 AM
This article addreses a very important question for all of us. Namely "where did we come from?" The answer to this (hopefully) sheds insight into "who am I?" and ultimately, "where are we going?" So I fully understand why people get so emotionally attached to their claims. They have build an entire worldview around them and would rather not see that worldview deconstructed. I believe that the Bible was not written to present facts (at least not most of the Bible) but rather to present very deep metaphysical Truths about the nature of our existence that the limitations of physical language simply cannot fully communicate. So the authors of the Bible, in their high wisdom and compassion presented what they knew in the best way they knew how: symbols and myths. In my view, Genesis is not about the creation of the physical Earth, but about our spiritual origins. It tells us of how we are created from the Mind of God and how we still exist within that Mind, whether we can still recognize that or not. It tells of our relationship with the Supreme, and why suffer, why we feel empty or lost or alone. It also gives very wise advise about how to go beyond that suffering, how to renew our wholeness in the Creator. Let the scientists debate and squabble about the origin of the species, the Bible tells us quite clearly that we are not our physical bodies, but rather divine Children of God living temporarily within physical bodies. The concern of Christians and of all who seriously study the Bible should be our spiritual origins. When we reclaim those origins from a true point of knowing (not mere belief) then I believe that we will know the rest as well. Seek ye first the Kindom of Heaven and all else will be added unto you. Remember, very few scientists try to explain God with science, perhaps the religions should stop trying to explain science with God as well. Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, give to God what is God's.
Posted by: Ryan | July 8, 2009 9:58 AM
Thank you Julie for sharing your journey. I think God appreciates our questions and wrestlings with areas that to some degree will remain a partial mystery till heaven. I read a quote one time that has always stuck with me....It was spoken by a university physics professor, he said " If you want to find professors that believe in Evolution...you will have to go to the philosophy dept......you won't find any in the physics dept. "
I know there are many in the scientific field that embrace evolution but none that can explain the mathmatical implausibilities that they must wink at to embrace it. We can "observe", speculate based on what we think is reasonable and sound but when it is all over you can never escape the virtual impossibility of evolution mathmatically. I'm of coure speaking of the macro type that deals with origins. I do not have all the answers, but it seems science should have outgrown evolution decades ago. If it did not provide such a cover for anti-theist, I believe it would have. I love the intellectual honesty of long time Athiest apologist Anthony Flew who within the past few years has openly admitted that intelligent design is the only plausable answer to our exisistance.
Posted by: Brad Hill | July 21, 2009 12:42 PM
Dear Julie
Your husband probably has a reasoned response to the following statement from the review by Jason Rosenhouse� found on his Blog but, for the life of me I cannot guess what it might be.
�It is not hard to see why Christians would be uncomfortable with a modern understanding of evolution. Biologist George Williams expressed the basic problem well in his book Plan and Purpose in Nature.� He goes on to quote Williams:
�With what other than condemnation is a person with any moral sense supposed to respond to a system in which the ultimate purpose in life is to be better than your neighbor at getting genes into future generations, in which those successful genes provide the message that instructs the development of the next generation, in which that message is always �exploit your environment, including your friends and relatives, so as to maximize our (genes') success, in which the closest thing to a golden rule is �don't cheat, unless it is likely to provide a net benefit.� �
Frankly, I think that C. S. Lewis was and is correct in his assessment of what is now called "neo-Darwinism" entitled "The Funeral of a Great Myth", published in Christian reflections.
On the other hand,both Giberson and Francis Collins assume that the only rational position that a Christian can take is some form of "theistic evolution". Neither seems to come to terms with Williams concerns. They either are ignorant of the problems or choose to ignore the issue. Instead the word �fundamentalist� is used club-like on anyone who dares question the validity of Darwinian evolution as they assess the matters of origin of life or survival of the species.
Alvin Plantinga one of the English-speaking world�s most respected philosophers penned the following words when assessing the claims of �theistic evolution� in Christian Scholars Review (Sept. 1991). "The right attitude toward the claim of universal common descent is, I think, one of a certain interested but wary skepticism. It is possible this is how things happened; God could have done it that way; but the evidence is ambiguous. That it is possible is clear;that it happened is doubtful; that it is certain, however, is ridiculous.
Neither Lewis nor Plantinga can be dismissed as "fuzzy minded fundamentalists" but both Giberson and Collins ignore their reasoned concerns and do ignore or dismiss these clear thinking Christians. In Giberson's case, he seems to prefer the company of those like Daniel Dennett (an honest thinker and seeker after truth) to fellow Christians for whom, by times, he has little good to say. �Fundamentalist� is hardly a word that can be construed as a compliment or a term of respect. �fundamentalism� he resorts to denying lawyers, theologians or social scientists any credibility to speak on the topic�unless, like Bernard Ramm (the theologian) who happens to think positively about some form of theistic evolution.
Interestingly, in a recent issue of Books and Culture Giberson (a physicists) claims to know little about evolution but to trust Francis Collins. Collins, in turn, claims not to know any credible critics of Darwinism. Perhaps, he never met Pierre Grasse who rejected neo-Darwinism because it does not account for new information in the DNA. Grasse is a French biologists who is world renowned. Notwithstanding Grasse, Collins declares in Books and Culture that trying to do biology without evolution is like trying to do physics without mathematics. Furthermore declares Collins, evolution is not going to be disproved in a hundred thousand years. It is a fact.
Closer to Giberson�s home the Canadian, Professor W. R. Thompson F.R.S. and distinguished Director of the [British] Commonwealth Institute of Biological Control at Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, was approached in 1956 to pen the introduction to the centenary edition of Darwin�s Origin of Species to be published for 1959. Thompson the leading biologist in Canada and the Commonwealth, did exactly what Collins said is impossible� successfully work as a biologist while doubting Darwin.
Thompson�s response to J.M. Dent and Sons was that they should know that his �introduction� would be much different than that written by Sir Arthur Keith fifty years previously. Indeed, while Thompson respected Darwin, he could not write �a mere variation on the hymn to Darwin and Darwinism that introduces so many text-books on biology and evolution. . .� In fact, Thompson stated: �I am not satisfied that Darwin proved his point or that his influence in scientific and public thinking has been beneficial.� The full text is worth the read.
Giberson�s book is frankly suspect in its history and its theology. Briefly, there is much to question about his historical survey of the acceptance of Darwin�s theory in North America. B. B. Warfield may well have entertained accepting Darwin�s theory but he certainly would not have accepted Giberson�s 21st century view of it. Nor would Giberson or Collins have had the support of Charles Hodge or many others (like James Orr) who wrote the articles included in The Fundamentals. The story is far more complex than Giberson would have us believe.
In order to save Darwin, Giberson is prepared to jettison the theological doctrines of the creation and the fall of humans and nature, the uniqueness of humans (made in the image of God, the Creator) and indeed, contrary to Collins theological hero, C.S. Lewis he redefines �sin� from moral rebellion ( see Right and Wrong as a Clue to the Meaning of the Universe) to �selfishness� in line with a Darwinian understanding of human nature (the selfish gene).
We (as humans) sin (we are selfish, for example)because we know �intuitively� what is the right thing to do (part of the image of God) but as rebels against the Creator, we refuse to do that right thing. There is a theological distinction between SIN (as moral rebellion) and sin (the specific instance of the rebellion).
Giberson and Collins (who enthusiatically endorsed Saving Darwin) present their position as the rational base to the Christian faith. They wish to persuade young people from �fundamentalist� Christian homes that the acid of Darwinism need not eat through the basics of the Christian faith. These young people need to understand that there is a �spiritual world view� and a �scientific world view� and that the assured results of scientific reasoning is the final court of appeal. If and when the spiritual conflicts with the rationally scientific, then the spiritual must be reinterpreted (as unnecessary fundamentalistic mythology). Hence the jettisoning of �the fall� and the �uniqueness of human beings� and the theological de- linking of the first man (Adam, who sinned) and the second man (Christ, who died for our sins).
In a remarkable statement (written by Giberson, and apparently, read and endorsed by Collins) the position of �following the evidence where it leads� and claiming to be rational, dissolves under the acid of Darwin�s dangerous idea. Should Giberson be asked by Dawkins or Dennett, why he remains a Christian, having acknowledged all that �evidence � for Darwinism, we read:
�. . . in my more reflective moments, I sometimes wonder if I am perhaps simply continuing along the trajectory of a childhood faith that should be abandoned.�
So far so good. Giberson, is a human who suffers from pangs of doubt. But rather than a ringing endorsement of the truth of Christian theism or a trenchant critique of atheistic materialism we read the following:
�As a purely practical matter, I have compelling reasons to believe in God.�
At this point a rousing rational, scientific defense (apologetic) is to be expected. We can �save Darwin� but still be a Christian. Giberson�s students await his words of wisdom as both he and Collins are claiming the mantle of C.S. Lewis when it comes to presenting a Christian faith for an inquiring mind in the 21st century.
Tragically this is what we are given as �compelling reasons��and don�t think that Richard Dawkins, Michael Ruse, Danniel Dennett, and Jerry Coyne have missed the point�
�My parents are deeply committed Christians and would be devastated, were I to reject my faith. My wife and children believe in God and we attend church together regularly. Most of my friends are believers. I have a job I love at a Christian College that would be forced to dismiss me if I were to reject the faith that underpins the mission of the college. Abandoning belief in God would be disruptive, sending my life completely off the rails. I can sympathize with Darwin as he struggled against the unwanted challenges to his faith.�
If Dennett and Ruse are to be fairly described as �honest thinkers and seekers after the truth�, they have got to be less than impressed with these �compelling reasons�. Frankly, I can�t believe this is what St. Peter had in mind when he instructed us �to be ready to give a reason for the hope� that we have.
Giberson may have �saved� Darwin but I fear he has done so at the expense of any kind of credible apologetic for the Christian faith. I fear for the future of both Karl Giberson and his students if this book reflects the direction of his thought. Darwin�s dangerous idea has begun its destructive work. Where will it end. Only the grace of God will prevent it from destroying Giberson and those who take him at face value�including Francis Collins.
Posted by: Jack McLaughlin | September 1, 2009 12:03 PM