Evolution and the Christian.God is Sovereign over Chance and History
Contents:
Preface.
Perhaps it is only coincidence, but I was brought up as a child only five miles from Down House where Darwin lived from 1842. I have great respect for Darwin (1809-82), he struggled with these issues just as we do today. He was also blessed to have a godly wife, his cousin Emma Wedgewood whom he married in 1839. My issue is not so much with Darwin, but with those who take Darwin's ideas as an excuse for atheism. Perhaps God raised up Darwin to rid the Church of unbelievers. Maybe you have heard it preached that God gives you the desire of your heart (Psa 20:4), doesn't God give unbelievers the desire of their hearts also? The belief of the atheist is that there is no God, God will grant their hearts desire, eternity without God (see 2 Th 2:11). For those wishing to exchange the truth of God for a lie, and worship and serve created things rather than the Creator, God has given them just what they wanted, Darwinism as they want to perceive it. Whether Darwinism actually leads to the death of God, however is another issue. The big lie is for people to believe that Darwinism means that there is no God. The argument is that if natural laws are sufficient to account for the existence life on earth then there is no need for God. There are at least two things wrong with the argument. Firstly, we do not know whether natural laws can create life, that is whether biogenesis is possible. Darwinism assumes that there is life for natural selection to occur. Secondly, what is the source of the natural laws that gave rise to life? This can be followed up with the question, what started it all anyway? Just suppose that the laws of nature that God created are sufficient to bring forth life on earth, does that mean that God is not the Creator? Of course not, God the first cause, used secondary causes to bring forth life. Another argument is that the appearance of chance precludes design, and I would reply that a sovereign God is quite capable of using chance for his own ends. The lie is that if evolution is true then there is no need for God or that he does not exist. This is simply not true, suppose that evolution was true, does that mean that there is no Creator? If evolution does turn out to be true then it simply means that God gifted his creation with the means to produce diverse life. Whether God uses natural or supernatural means to create the universe and life, He is sovereign over his creation. Evolution does not answer the question about the origin of the scientific laws that allow life to exist or even the origin of the big bang and the universe. Now this view would commonly be called theistic evolution, which I would not espouse, simply because we have not found a mechanism to produce complex life from simple molecules and I would certainly reject chance plus natural selection as a mechanism for the formation of the first living cell. If such a mechanism is found then it will be one of the greatest scientific discoveries this century, but once again it does not make God redundant. In fact it should give us more reason to praise God as Creator. While science is naturalistic, it has nothing to say about the origin of the 'natural' laws which it investigates. Genesis 1:1 simply says 'In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth' it is implicit that God also created the laws that sustain the universe and which scientists seek to discover and understand, that is, thinking God's thoughts after him. Science is the study of God's works whether we acknowledge him or not. To the atheist we should ask: who created the laws that gave rise to such an intricate and finely tuned universe suitable for life? I would suggest that the choice is between happenstance or God. While many of us would reject the theistic evolution view we should note that it still belongs to creedal Christianity, which acknowledges God as Creator. We should be aware of the false dichotomy between choosing between God or evolution, at a fundamental level evolution does not do away with God, it is this lie that has done so much damage. As a scientist, I take science seriously and as a Christian I take the bible seriously. I do not regard myself to be a liberal as far as the bible is concerned. I believe that the God of the bible is the same God who created the universe and the scientific laws, which a scientist seeks to discover and to understand. I also believe that with God's word and his creation, there should not be any conflict. Any apparent conflict is because we have not interpreted either God's word or his works correctly. The bible is clear that God's eternal power and divine nature can be clearly understood from what God has made (Rom 1:20). Although the bible is also clear that the message of salvation, the gospel, is made clear through preaching (Rom 10:14 ), nature alone does not make the gospel clear, we also need biblical revelation to understand God and the way of salvation. Much of the conflict between evolution and creation lies in the conclusions drawn from the theory of evolution and a literal interpretation of Genesis 1-11. There are two extremes, those whose philosophy is scientific materialism and the the biblical literalists who disregard the findings of science. In 1850 Christians believed in the fixity of species and Darwin's ideas and the fossil record went against this. Now when we read our bible we see that God created living creatures after their kind (from an unused root meaning; to portion out; a sort) thus some flexibility is allowed. Clearly one of the reasons that Christians do not like the theory of evolution are the philosophical implications that atheists draw from the theory. Such as the meaninglessness of life and morality, even Solomon came to such a realisation as he pondered the world around him (Eccl 1:2).
However at the end of his musings over life he came to the following conclusion:
The philosophical conclusions of many evolutionists result in a world view that is antithetical to that of Christianity to say the least. However, it is the naturalistic assumptions held by some evolutionists that make the implications of evolution opposed to the Christian worldview. I would suggest that the battle is between world views rather than science. As I hope to demonstrate later the sovereignty of God means that God rules over chance and history. Further the laws of science that men put their hope in and substitute for God are created by God. In fact the recent discoveries of science are giving us a view of the universe more in tune with a Creator than before. For example, the discovery of the evidence for a big bang which mean that the universe had a beginning and the fine tuning of the physical constants that is needed for life to exist on earth (the anthropic principle). We have a universe with a beginning and designed for man (and also that God could become man7). God as Creator.We know from the Bible that only God is the Creator (Rev 4:11), with regard to evolution the question arises as to what extent has God endowed his creation with creative powers? To what extent do the laws of nature govern the origin of the universe and of life itself. According to Howard Van Till, Augustine thought that God had gifted his creation with the ability to transform itself from unformed matter to life forms:
Looking at the formation of the first living cell from non-living chemicals there appears to be no natural mechanism to accomplish this complex act. We know that man can make things out of existing materials. We know that life has the ability to reproduce and repair itself and even to adapt to changing environmental conditions. The question is - did God create the universe such that it would create life (by apparently random processes) and is this built in to the fundamental laws of nature, which of course God created? Now if God did that then this would be the position of the theistic evolutionist - in which God started the universe and then left it alone. The progressive creationist would say that God intervened at specific points in history to create life and then rested from his labours. The bible is clear that God rested from his work of creating Gen 2:2-3 and that now God sustains the universe Heb 1:3, which he does largely through the laws of nature which he created. However he is still sovereign over the affairs of man. God still answers prayer and works in all things for the good of those who love him. The point is that God could still have used natural mechanisms to create the universe and yet be sovereign over the process and the outcome. The bible is clear about a number of issues:Whether we are biblical literalists or not, the first three chapters of Genesis contain an abundance of theology (revelation ie. revealed truth), not all of which is obvious from nature alone.
Therefore we must reject any claim that man is merely the product of pure chance and just a higher animal. The bible is quite clear that man was made from from "the dust of the ground" Gen 2:7 not from animal life. Also God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being (Gen 2:7), further we would say that man has an eternal spirit (Rom 2:7). The difference between man and the animals is also highlighted by the fact that man was to "rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground." (Gen 1:28). Also no suitable helper for the man was found from among the animals (Gen 2:20). Further the author is quite capable of saying that man came from the animals, because in the creation of woman she was formed from the actual body of man and therefore was the same substance of man, but the author is clear that man was made from dust. God created man to fellowship with Him and to enjoy him forever. Further God became a man himself and lived amongst us, so in designing man, God also had to make a fit vehicle to express himself during his own time on earth. Pure chance does not exist because God is sovereign over chance or random events. Einstein was upset by the uncertainty of quantum physics and said that "God does not play dice". I would say that not only does God plays dice but that he determines the outcome according to his plan, will and pleasure. To say that God cannot use apparently (to us) random events to fulfil his will is to deny God's sovereignty. Clues in Genesis. First we need to look at the Hebrew word for 'create' bara which means to create something new.
Bara is only used about three creation events: the heavens and the earth; sea creatures and birds; and man. Then there is asah which means to make or to produce (out of pre-existing materials). We can see this clearly in the reference to trees bearing (asah) fruit Gen 1:11-12, it is the trees that produce fruit.
We should note that Gen 2:7 says that "God formed the man from the dust of the ground " man was not made out of nothing but from dust. Gen 2:19 says that "God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air". Both animals, birds and man came from the ground. Gen 2:22 says that "God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man" she was the same substance as man. One way of looking at the creation narrative is to divide it into creating the form (days 1-3) and filling the form (days 4-6). Vegetation is made on day 3 and living creatures are only made on days 5 and 6. We should also note that the phrase 'according to its/their kind' occurs ten time in all. For examples of the use of the word 'kind' (miyn) see Lev 11:14-29, owls, hawks, kites etc. it is certainly wider than the species level.
Is Evolution a threat to Christianity?I would suggest that at a fundamental level Evolution is no threat to the existence of God. Suppose one day that we discover some mechanism in which non-life could give rise to life. Then it simply means that God has endowed his creation with the ability to produce life. However this would leave us in the theistic evolution camp in which God created the laws of the universe, started things and then left well alone. However the God of the bible intervenes in the universe both as Creator during the six days of Genesis chap 1 and more specifically as redeemer and most notably in Jesus Christ and his life, death, resurrection and ascension. Of course the mockers and scoffers would use the discovery of such a mechanism to conclude that God does not exist, but his existence is not threatened in the least by such a discovery. It still leaves the fundamental question as to the origin of the natural laws as well as the origin of the universe unanswered. Did it happen just by happenstance? This question is rarely asked, possibly because people do not want to know the answer. However, evolution is a threat to the biblical God because the bible makes it clear that God was intimately involved in the creation process from the beginning until the sixth day when he rested. Evolution is no threat to deism, in which God started the process off and then left things alone. Of course whether evolution has any creative power is the matter in dispute. There is absolutely no evidence that evolution has the power to create a living cell from chemicals. At higher levels the evidence is that life is discontinuous rather than continuous as Darwin proposed. Of course atheists will seize on the theory to say that it makes God redundant, however it does not make God redundant as the first cause and the creator of the scientific laws, even evolution cannot do that. Science does not even ask that question, about the first cause and the origin of the scientific laws. William Provine of Cornell University candidly conceded that if Darwinism is true, then there are five inescapable implications8:
This is the 'mess of pottage' that atheists like Dawkins and Dennett wish to sell us, however we believe that William Provine is wrong on all five points. Here are a few contrasts between the atheistic evolutionary world view and the Christian world view.
I have deliberately used the term 'atheistic evolution' because not all of the above flow from the scientific theory of evolution. One of the things that amazes me is how eager people are to grab hold of the atheist's 'mess of pottage'. For example when modern cosmology shows that there is a beginning to the universe the scientists eagerly search for alternative explanations because a beginning points to a first cause, God. They display the same behaviour as our first parents did when they hid from God when they heard his voice in the garden after they had sinned (Gen 3:8-10). Instead of hiding among the trees scientists hide behind 'oscillating universes' or 'many universes' scenarios. I will talk about God's sovereignty later, but we should note that God is sovereign even over chance, if He were not he would not be sovereign at all, and therefore not God. Evolution and idolatry.
From a philosophical view the grand theory of evolution is idolatry in that it substitutes nature for God. Man attributes the Creator's power to nature rather than acknowledging God as the Creator and source of all things. We worship the second cause not the first. Science itself is not idolatry, discovering the laws of nature is not idolatry. It is when we substitute the laws of nature for God that it becomes idolatry. "They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator" Rom 1:25. The scientific laws are created things. Many scientists of old could glorify God for his creation as they went about the process of scientific discovery. They were thinking God's thoughts after him. We should determine at what point we extend the boundaries of science until it becomes idolatrous. What about creation science?Creation science rests upon a literal interpretation of Genesis. The six days of creation are 6 twenty four-hour periods of time. It assumes a recent creation i.e., a young earth, and that the geological strata and fossils were laid down by a great world-wide flood. There are three problems with creation science:
Our interpretation of the early part of Genesis is not a trivial matter, it is made much more difficult because we are looking at the passage through a filter consisting of translation, language, time, culture, literary type as well as the authors original intent when writing the passage. Regardless of our intepretation method, the theology in Genesis 1-3 is very rich indeed, for example the origin of the universe, of man, of sin and sexual ethics are based on on Genesis 1-3. Young earth or old earth?
Now, even ignoring radiometric dating, there is good evidence that the earth is at least 4 to 20 million years old and 4.5 billion years old if radiometric dating is included. The cosmological data also indicates a universe which is very old. Much of the scientific evidence for a young earth simply does not stand up to scientific scrutiny. While a superficial study of our English translation of the bible supports a young earth and a global flood it can be interpreted differently. In other words one can support the scientific evidence for an old earth and maintain biblical authority. Conflict between the bible and science is an apparent conflict only, it depends on our interpretation of the scientific and biblical data. To insist that the bible teaches a young earth goes against the scientific data and the bible can be interpreted to allow an old earth. It is not sufficient to question the scientific data, we must also question our interpretation of the bible. We should remember that historically we thought that the bible taught that the sun goes round the earth, but it was our interpretation of the bible that was wrong. For example, by taking a literal interpretation of a poetic passage (Psa 50:1) in which the rising and setting of the sun is viewed from man's perspective on earth in which the sun rotates about the earth. Flood local or global?As with Gen 1, our interpretation of the scriptures concerning the flood is questionable or at least we need to check that we have actually got it right. We should keep in mind that when we are reading the Genesis flood account that we are reading it through the filter of time, culture, translation, language and interpretation, not to mention the author's original intent (see Resolving Conflicts between the Bible and Science. on-site). I am speaking as a scientist who regards God works as important and as a Christian who regards God's word as important. Now I think it is reasonably clear from our English translation of the bible that the destruction by the flood of the whole earth is implied. It certainly seems that all mankind is wiped out, but that does not necessarily imply a world wide flood because man might not have spread throughout the world by then. While the main purpose of the flood was to wipe out mankind and start again, the animals were affected otherwise why have the ark, see Gen 6:13, 17 in which all animal life is wiped out. In Gen 7:2- the word 'mountain' (har) can be translated 'hill' as in the KJV. Gen 8:4 says that "the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat" again the word mountains, pleural, (har) can be translated hills so the ark could have landed on the foothills of the Ararat range which cover 100,000 miles. The words usually translated 'earth' adamah and erets do not necessarily mean this round globe called Earth, but can mean country, earth, ground, land and nation. While our English translation clearly states the destruction of the human race we should not rule out the likelihood that mankind lived in a small portion of the Earth and therefore the flood was local. The ark was required to replenish the local animal species, which could be used as food after the flood, see Gen 9:3. From the perspective of the writer it would be the whole known then earth. It should also be pointed out that Genesis was written to show the history of the line that would produce Abraham and his offspring through whom the whole earth would be blessed, Gen 12:3. The New Testament mainly refers to the destruction of human life by the flood, however 2 Pet 3:3-7 compares the destruction of the earth by water to the future destruction of the heavens and the earth by fire. The book by Hugh Ross The Genesis Question discusses the problem of local or global flood in chap 18. The Nature of Science.Empirical and Forensic Science:In any discussion of origins we need to talk about the nature of science. We have laboratory based empirical science which has the characteristic of being repeatable. This includes most of physics and chemistry and much of biology and biochemistry. A researcher makes a discovery in the laboratory and publishes his findings and then another researcher seeks to reproduce his findings and corroborates his findings by publishing another paper. Then we have forensic science in which we are studying the case of a one off incident that is not repeatable. We are all well aware of the forensic science that can result in the conviction of a criminal. Another example is cosmology or astrophysics, the study of the cosmos is rather unique in that because of the finite speed of light we can see into the past. We can see stars and galaxies as they were at different times in the past according to how far they are away from us. We can see different types of stars and form a sequence which gives the life cycle of the stars. However we should note that this life cycle is assumed, because no one can actually see the life cycle of a particular star because it takes billions of years. Now in the same way that we distinguish between laboratory science, which is repeatable, from forensic science, which is not. We must also distinguish between microevolution, which is observable and repeatable, and macroevolution which is not. Limitations of science:By 1895 scientists had a Newtonian world, which was pretty deterministic and they thought that they knew pretty well how the world worked. That view of the world was overturned in the 20th century through the discovery of relativity and quantum mechanics, the world was much weirder that we thought. Science can never describe a completely mechanistic and deterministic universe, the laws of science do not permit this at the quantum level because of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. While science can investigate the laws of nature it cannot at present come up with the source of those laws, the laws that seem so finely tuned to produce a habitat on earth suitable for intelligent life to live on the earth. Concerning the origin of these laws, Kenneth Miller says:
In fact one of the great marvels of modern physics is that it can be rigorously described by mathematics. However we cannot know the exact position of an electron, only its probable position. We cannot know when an individual atom will decay radioactively, only the probability of a decay. The particle-wave duality of light and particles throws us another difficulty with a Newtonian world. The equivalence between energy and matter has been demonstrated to produce more and more exotic particles as we use higher and higher energy levels to investigate atomic structure. Another limitation of science is that it is limited to what can be observed. A scientist standing by the sea as the Israelites fled Egypt would observe that a strong east wind parted the sea and turned it into land so that the Israelites went through the sea on dry land. However the strong east wind is a secondary cause, the first cause is God who caused it and it revealed in scripture that God was the first cause (Exo 14:21, 15:8). While science deals with secondary causes, the first cause is revealed by revelation in scripture. It should be clear that science can only deal with what is physical but God is spirit. While the material world will show that man is a higher ape, revelation shows that man is made in the image of God. The sad fact is that the natural man would rather be in the image of an ape because it absolves him of moral responsibility to a transcendent God. Any scientist employs methodological naturalism routinely during experiments, we assume that God is not going to tamper with the experiment. However that same scientist might pray to God to ask for wisdom and protection. Nature Is The Book Of Gods WorksWhile the bible is the book of God's Word, nature is the book of God's works, the bible affirms that we can understand something about the nature of God from the things that have been made (Rom 1:20). However that understanding is incomplete without someone who can explain the word of God (Rom 10:14), specifically the gospel. Thus nature is sufficient to bring us under judgement but not to save us (Rom 1:32), hence the need for missionaries and evangelists. Modern science is coming closer to supporting a biblical world view. The discovery in the last century of the big bang through the red shift and microwave background radiation has given us the evidence that the universe did indeed have a beginning and that it was not eternal. The fact that it has a beginning requires that there was a cause, which is both uncaused and external to the universe, because the universe cannot have caused itself. The other great discovery is that the physical constants of the universe seem to be exactly tuned to support life on the earth, the so called Anthropic Principle. For a further description of how extra-ordinary are the conditions required for advanced life on earth see the book 'Rare Earth' which shows that even the moon, Jupiter and continental drift are required for intelligent life on the earth. Those who study the cosmos will be struck by the immensity of the universe. Those who study the molecular biology of the cell will be struck by the complexity of it. Those who study physics will be struck by the beauty of the maths that describes it. The Anthropic Principle shows that not just any set of constants will produce a livable universe. The universe or more specifically the earth appears designed for life, even volcanoes are necessary to support life, continental drift is also necessary. Even the lower density of ice compared to water is necessary. We can attribute this to chance or design even though chance can have an apparent role in design. We are free to choose between design and happenstance. Love never works coercively, it only works persuasively.It also seems that God has created us so that we can choose to live without him, he does not coerce us to believe in him. Carl Sagan wondered why God didn't put a cross in the sky so that we would be forced into believing in him, but that would be coercion. Such is the value of finding God that we should seek him, only those who want and value Him will desire to spend eternity with him. Those who mock and despise God will get what they want -- eternity without God. Ultimately God gives us our hearts desire.
God rested from his work of creation.The bible clearly says that God created the heavens and the earth, and further that God created all living things and man. The bible also says that that God rested from his work of creation, thus he is no longer creating but sustaining his universe (Heb 1:3). We can investigate the mechanisms of his sustaining the universe through physical, chemical and biological investigation, that is through scientific investigation (empirical science). We should therefore expect to see mechanisms for such complex phenomena as embryonic development and metamorphosis and the brain. Bernard Ramm said "If man can think God's thoughts after Him, why is it so incredible that man can do some of God's works after him"? We should not make God, the god of the gaps, because we should expect that science will eventually find out those mechanisms that govern complex processes. The question is whether God used natural processes, which of course He created, to create the earth and life on earth? We can only investigate these one off events through forensic science. If we assume that science has got the big bang theory right. Then I think that we can reasonably postulate how the earth was created using natural laws, this appears to be how the Christian Hugh Ross thinks. We certainly know that the fundamental constants of physics and chemistry are 'just right' to all the universe to develop in its present form. This 'just rightness' was the reason for the anthropic principle. Certainly the first verse of Genesis seems compatible with this view: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." Hebrews 11:3 also supports this:
Now we might suppose that after creating the universe and the earth God got his hands dirty, but in the rest of the Genesis creation narrative God spoke the rest of creation into existence "And God said, 'Let there be light,' and there was light.". Now if God spoke the world and life into existence and if he sustains it through his powerful word (Heb 1:3) then it is at least possible that God used natural means to create life. God's Sovereignty over chance and history
Kenneth Miller in his book 'Finding Darwin's God' suggests that because we believe that God can and does act in the world today even though it is controlled by mechanistic laws, that we should have no difficulty in believing that God created the world by these same mechanistic laws. He has his point because God is sovereign over nature, even over chance. R C Sproul in his book"Not a Chance" has said that if just one molecule or electron was truly free to act on its own then God is not sovereign. The decision to allow an electron to do its own thing, is still a choice that God makes. The bible itself says that God determines the result of chance events (Prov 16:33). The point then is that Darwinism claims that natural selection acted upon chance mutations, but that God rules over chance or randomness. It should also be pointed out that we believe that God predestines life and works out everything according to his plan, pleasure and will (Eph 1:5, 11).
In Acts 17:26 says "From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live", this not only affirms Adam to be the ancestor of all living but also that after the creation God was active in determining where men should live and when. From a human level the migration of mankind to different parts of the globe would seem to be a rather random event. Even the promised land was distributed to the clans of the tribes of Israel by lot (Num 26:55-56, Josh 14:2) as instructed by God. Israel was not allowed to take over the land belonging to the Ammonites because God said "I have given it as a possession to the descendants of Lot" (Deu 2:19). Even what appears to be chance happenings in history are determined by God, he is sovereign over all. In Romans 9:17 the Scripture says to Pharaoh: "I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." Much of our Old Testament shows us God's sovereignty over the nations.
Even now God rules over the nations (Psa 22:28, Dan 4:17, 7:14, Rev 1:5), sometimes providence is used instead of sovereignty. He even allowed wicked men to crucify Jesus Christ, but even this was for God's set purpose and with His foreknowledge (Acts 2:23). In addressing God in prayer, the early Christians called God, "Sovereign Lord," who "made the heaven and the earth and the sea, and everything in them" (Acts 4:24). Indeed in talking about what Pilate, Herod and the Gentiles did to Jesus, these disciples said that "they did what your power and will had decided beforehand should happen" (Acts 4:28). If God is sovereign over wicked men then he is also sovereign over chance. While wicked men have the appearance of free will, God's free will is greater.
If we believe in the doctrine of predestination, in which everything works out in conformity with the purpose of God's will (Eph 1:11), then chance represents no threat whatsoever to to biblical Christianity. Do we believe that God "chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight" (Eph 1:4)? Yet we know that we resulted from the apparent chance fertilization of an egg by just one of millions of sperm. If we believe that "in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose" (Rom 8:28), then even though we might not understand how God works for good in these "all things", we can still trust him. If God can use the wickedness of Joseph's brothers, who sold Joseph into slavery, to fulfil his plan (Gen 50:20) then surely God can also use apparently random events. I would suggest that although we do not fully understand how God created the world and life on earth, we can still praise God as Creator whether he used the natural laws, which he created, or through direct (and unobserved) miraculous intervention. The scriptures tell us that God spoke and it was created, the how is not mentioned. The scriptures tell us that God sustains the world through his powerful word (Heb 1:3) and we can investigate this using empirical science, we can only investigate the one time creation through forensic science. Even though the world is sustained by the natural laws that God created, we never the less pray to God because he is sovereign over nature. However the chief difficulty I have with Miller's ideas is to extrapolate from God's sustaining the universe through to His creating the universe and everything in it. In the same way I have no difficulty in believing in microevolution as it is observed in the laboratory, I have difficulty in extrapolating this to macro evolution to determine the origin of the species. Again Kenneth Miller ('Finding Darwin's God' p 268), a Christian, makes the following statement:
In other words God has endowed his creation with the mechanisms required to produce life, including man, on earth. Now I would say that this argument is the argument of theistic evolution, i.e. God created the laws of science and started it all off, although he could have tinkered at a quantum level in order to provide the desired outcome. However there is a slight difference in that, as Kenneth Miller would argue, if God is sovereign now as he sustains the universe using the laws of science, he was also sovereign then still using the same laws of science. While admitting that we do not know the detailed mechanism for the origin of life, he says on p 276 that "My point is that there is no religious reason, none at all, for drawing a line in the sand at the origin of life". I would submit that there is a very good reason for drawing a line in the sand because God rested from his work of creation. His method for sustaining life, which is through the scientific laws, is not necessarily the same method for creating life in the first place. He does correctly identify the fact the God, who is sovereign, works his will out in the present with the naturalism of physics and chemistry. And that a God who achieves His will in the present by such means can hardly be threatened by the discovery that He might have worked the same way in the past. However we should ask ourselves the question -- did God just use the natural laws when he parted the Red sea or when Jesus fed the five thousand or when God raised Jesus from the dead? Does Miller even consider that God uses miracles? The fundamental question then is whether God used natural laws to create life on earth, he could have, but did he? Or did he do something outside of the realm of natural science, that is, a miracle. Also we know that microevolution can be demonstrated in the laboratory, are we correct to extrapolate it into the past to account for the origin of life? Because there is a difference between God as Creator and as Sustainer, we should be very careful before we conclude that God's methods as Creator and Sustainer are the same. Primary and secondary causes: R C Sproul in the book "The invisible Hand" which deals with Providence and God's government. Sproul makes a distinction between primary and secondary causes. He quotes the Westminster confession:
"The distinction between primary causality and secondary causality was designed both for scientific and theological reasons. It functions as a description but not a full explanation of the relationship between the actions of God and the actions of created things. Secondary causality refers to the force imparted by physical creatures. Primary causality refers to the causal power exerted by God in the course of cosmic events" (Sproul p 104) We can see God as the primary cause and a 'strong east wind' as the secondary cause in the parting of the red sea (Exo 14:21).
In Josh 2:10 it says "how the LORD dried up the water of the Red Sea" the mention of a strong east wind is omitted. In both cases we are correct to say that the Lord did it, even though in the first case we find that he used an east wind to do it. We get an idea about God's command over nature when the disciples exclaimed "Who is this? Even the wind and the waves obey him!" (Mark 4:41). Of course those who do not believe in God would say that nature did it. I suspect that much of the current debate over evolution would be dispelled if only we realised that the sovereignty of God means that God rules over apparently (to us) chance events. The problem is that our idea of God is just too small and our preaching about sovereignty and providence does not, for the most part, exist. Augustine on Genesis
Augustine, as early as AD 415, warned us against an unwise insistence on biblical literalism in the face of scientific proof (Patrick Glynn p. 35).
The Catholic church got into trouble by insisting that the sun went round the earth, a view spurned by Galileo (1564 - 1642) who in 1614 taught the Copernicus (1473 - 1543) system that the earth went round the sun. Likewise the Protestant church got into trouble by insisting on catastrophism (due to the great flood) but in 1830, Charles Lyell's book Principles of Geology showed how the normal forces of nature could account for present day geology given enough time. There was a purely mechanistic explanation for the history of the earth. With Darwin the church got into trouble by insisting on the fixity of species. Today the church is mocked because some insist on a young earth. While there will always be mockers and scoffers, in some instances the mockers are right. Modern scientific discoveries are showing us that there is a natural explanation for the origin of the universe, but it is also showing us the fine tuning involved with this natural explanation. Even the earliest part of the big bang had to be finely tuned to produce a universe capable of sustaining life. God always leaves his fingerprint, the fine tuning of the universe and in biology the complexity of the cell and the high information content of DNA. One of the great unsolved mysteries is the origin of life on earth (abiogenesis), suppose we discover a natural explanation for this, does this negate God in any way? If we believe that God is Sovereign now, although the universe runs by natural law, then he was also sovereign when he created the universe even though he could have used same the laws (that he created to sustain the universe) to bring about mankind on the earth. Later to inhabit human flesh himself, clearly a supernatural event. There is no current working theory for abiogenesis, but it does Christianity no good to posit a god-of-the-gaps only to be mocked when a valid scientific explanation is eventually found. It seems to me that as we make new scientific discoveries we find more evidence for God's eternal power, divine nature and wisdom. Now just as evolutionists make the mistake of extrapolating empirical science to account for origins, it is possible that I have made the mistake of extrapolating God's providence over the universe to include God's creation of the universe. Notes:
Books:
Links:
Providence:The London Confession of 1689, the historic Reformed Baptist Confession of Faith, states,
Review of "Finding Darwin's God" by Kenneth R MillerGood on evolution, but poor on theology. Firstly I am pleased that a professing Christian and a cell biologist has come out of the woodwork and given us his thoughts on evolution, I wish that more would do so. I am fed up with atheistic propagandists like Dawkins telling us what to believe. The first half of the book is really an apologetic for evolution and Miller clearly believes in evolution and he quite happily commits the scientific blunder of extrapolating from microevolution, which is observable, to macroevolution, which is not. Macroevolution is a one off event and has to be studied using a forensic approach, while microevolution, which is repeatable, can be studied by empirical science. He first pulls apart the arguments of the young earth creationists. He then criticises Johnson for believing that God created each and every species, but this is the doctrine of the 'fixity of the species' held in 1850 and which no modern creationist would hold now. He creates a straw man and then ridicules it. Then he turns his gun at Behe, who is raising the old Design argument formulated by Paley but in new terminology and which Miller clearly despises. Behe's argument is that there are molecular structures with irreducible complexity, they need all the parts to work, and there is no evolutionary route to obtain these structures by small steps, since there is nothing for natural selection to work on a non-functioning structure. However, if there is a partially functioning structure then natural selection does have something to work on and a better functioning structure is possible, the prime example that Miller gives is blood clotting. Miller then proceeds with macroscopic examples of the evolution of the eye and Bats sonar detection system but without going into much detail. Both of these are theoretically possible to have evolved through small steps, again he assumes that macro-evolution is true and neither example is irreducibly complex or at the molecular level which is the subject of Behe's book. He then trots out the evolutionist's Just-so story about the mammalian ear evolving from the reptile lower jaw. He then proceeds to the 9-2 structure of the cilium and shows that there are various other arrangements of cilium, but they are all functioning cilium and this does not refute Behe's point, it does show that there are simple and complex cilium. Behe should have used the simplest cilium for his example instead of a more complex but common one. Since Behe's book was published in 1996 there have advances in the study of molecular micro-evolution which Miller describes, but most of these do not involve irreducibly complex systems, metabolic pathways are not irreducibly complex. Miller also shows that the complexity of the blood clotting mechanism, which Behe says is irreducibly complex, could be produced through successive stages. Miller also demonstrates that Behe's hypothesis that the original first 'Designed' cell had all its future complexity coded genetically but turned off was doomed to failure because of the accumulation of errors in unexpressed genes. Overall I would give a partial victory to Miller, but he does not manage to dismantle the challenge of irreducible complexity simply by giving examples of the generation of more complex systems from simple systems. Behe clearly needs to update his book and to produce clearer examples of irreducible complexity. Behe has answered Miller's criticism on the web. At a theological level he makes some good points, he rightly warns us about making God, the god of the gaps. We should expect that science will reveal how such complex mechanisms such as embryonic development, metamorphosis and the brain work, this is because God has already put in place the mechanisms to make it work without supernatural intervention. However it does not necessarily follow that we should expect to see completely naturalistic explanations for our origins unless you are committed to the doctrine of naturalism. Miller believes that the gaps in our knowledge should decrease based on his faith in naturalism. He says that we believe that God is sovereign now while still governing the universe through the laws of nature. This is true, but he also fails to mention that God has used miracles since the creation. He fails to take into account the fact that God has finished his work of creating and that he now upholds the universe using the laws of science as a mechanism. Miller wishes to continue using those same laws to create the universe as well, assuming that God's method of sustaining is the same as his creating, now this may be true, but he should have at least referred to the biblical data. He rightly points out that some people have taken evolution from its biological domain, and extended it to areas where it has no place. The public has not accepted the theory of evolution because it has been used by atheists to show that life is futile, something that we do not believe is true. Dawkins may delight in the seeming purposeless of life, while he gets a decent paycheck for saying so. He maybe be content with his 'mess of pottage', but that is a concept that the rest of us, who also sometimes struggle with an apparently meaningless life, find repugnant to our inner nature which tells us that there is meaning to the life we live. We should also note that the sovereignty of God means that God can even use chance to his own ends, God not only plays dice he determines the outcome, unfortunately Miller did not make this point. Certainly worth a read for its thought provoking account of micro-evolution, but look elsewhere for theologically satisfying answers. For more on evolution and the Christian see my Essay. This article added Nov 2000, update March 2008.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||