The Idiot’s Guide to Reconciling God and Darwin

I love those “Idiot” titles. So versatile. Well, before getting down to it, a short disclaimer: I’m probably going to miss something, or more likely forget it. The former, because I’m thinking of new things all the time; the latter, because that happens all the time, too. In other words, just be aware, these are my thoughts as of the moment.

So, for all the believers out there who have heard about evolution but aren’t sure it can be reconciled with your faith—rest assured, you don’t have to deny science in order to remain a Bible-believing Christian. As can be seen through the following steps…

Step #1:  “Goo to you” Evolution.

Ardent anti-evolutionist Jonathan Sarfati calls the idea of some sort of primordial matter evolving into simple life, and then that life evolving and branching out until the human race is formed, “goo to you” or “molecules to man” evolution. (I don’t believe he ever used the phrase “particles to people,” but in my opinion, he should.) His point is that the whole concept is ridiculous. Here’s my question to Mr. Sarfati: Well, God made man out of mud, didn’t He? Mud sounds like primordial matter to me. After that, it’s just arguing over schematics—how did God create us? Good question. The Bible just says God did. Who’s to say he didn’t use a process, the process we call evolution, to do just that?

Step # 2: Literally.

For literal Bible readers like Sarfati, the conclusion of Step # 1 is unacceptable, because it “clashes” with the Bible. The Bible says six days, and on the seventh day He rested—so what’s all this talk about a billion-years-old earth??  Well, as a friend of mine pointed out not too long ago, elsewhere in the Bible—probably the psalms somewhere—it reads something like, ten thousand years is like a blink of the eye to God. And my friend added—just think how many times you blink in a day!

While I don’t think the Eternal can be quantified—we who know neither the day nor the hour, how can we claim to know the length of God’s day?—my friend makes a good point. Here’s how I work it out:

The Bible is the inspired Word of God, yes? But it was written by humans. Your fallible, normal, sinful, everyday, run-of-the-mill humans. Very inspired, yes; very holy, quite possibly; but the fact is, they were only human. What does this mean? I’d like to use an excellent quote to make this point: “We see things not as they are, but as we are.” As human beings, we can’t comprehend Everything, and certainly not all at once. (Emily Dickenson: “The truth must dazzle gradually, or every man be blind.”) We write, we think, we know, only according to how much our understanding can hold. This is why human language is so fraught with metaphors, similes, figurative language, and symbolism. Why do you think Jesus taught in parables? We use stories to help ourselves understand the universe, and the truths we need to learn. Genesis doesn’t have to be read in our modern, literal interpretation in order for it to be true.

I love the way Ivan L. Zabilka put it, in his book Scientific Malpractice: The Creation/Evolution Debate. He wrote not only about why ID isn’t a science, but, for the discerning Christian, why the modern, fundamentalist, literal interpretation of the Bible is actually distorting Scripture. He writes:

“Unfortunately, Creationism is based upon an inappropriate, incomplete and at times even false hermeneutic. Hermeneutics is the logical ordering and identification of appropriate principles in the process of interpreting a document or biblical passage. The principles of hermeneutics have been frequently analyzed and largely agreed upon by biblical and literary scholars. In the process of interpretation three steps are necessary: determining the normative or basic (not necessarily literal) meaning of a passage, determining the author’s reason or purpose for a passage, and establishing the implications of a passage. These must be held in balance, and none can safely be neglected.”

But wait; it gets better. Zabilka says, “The general applicability of a passage of Scripture to the estate of Man is sometimes destroyed by universalizing a particular detail that was relevant only at a particular time and place….This does not mean that biblical statements should be ignored, but it does mean that they do not present a complete picture of the natural world.”

Not to mention: “Related to the error of finding a complete system is the encyclopedic error in interpreting the Bible. This…assume[s] the Bible presents all that is necessary for one to know about a topic.

And: “While the biblical revelation is historical, as has been increasingly demonstrated by archaeological discovery over the past century, it is also progressive. God is not fully revealed in the Pentateuch.”

This last bit is of particular interest to me. Although I am Catholic and Zabilka is Evangelical, he and my late pastor seemed to have shared the same view concerning the Bible. Zabilka called the Bible “progressive”; Father Jerry told me, “The Bible is like a ladder.” This means that if you were to read through the whole Bible, you’d find it starts out small, simply—the bottom rung of the ladder—and then moves forward—up the rungs—with each increasing revelation God made for the people. It’s symbolic not just of the human journey of sinlessness to fall to redemption, but of the increasing-in-goodness lessons learned along the way—like the progression from “an eye for an eye” to Jesus’ message of “love thy neighbor and turn the other cheek”.

What this means for the evolution question is, first, if you’re going to interpret Scripture, do it properly, and don’t say it says something just because your cultural background wants to interpret it that way, the author probably meant something totally different, considering his cultural background was vastly different from yours; second, don’t make universalities out of specific points; and third, Genesis is a beginning, not a complete and full, all-you-need-to-know revelation and science handbook. The authors of the Bible weren’t scientists; they were religious. Religious truths can take many forms, and often don’t use literal language. That’s why trying to compare the Bible and evolution in such ways is utterly disastrous.

And two quick last direct Zabilka quotes: “A second inadequacy of their exegesis that they are only selectively literal.” That is, when it suits their purposes, a sure sign of the instability of their position; and second: “The Creationists want only one meaning in a passage, the historical—no double meanings, no complex layers, no beautiful matrices of interwoven thought. All this is collapsed into the “simple.” This seems a most awkward allowing of culture to shape the interpretative methodology.”

I have to disagree with Zabilka’s choice of words here, although I do support his point. He says “historical,” but the historical interpretation would be to see how the author meant it, how it was meant in that time. The Creationists are looking for a scientific meaning. And looking for hard science in a work of religious or psychological truth, as Zabilka points out, is folly.

A discussion on the literal verses figurative nature of the Bible could go on all day; however, there are more points to get to. Continuing, then:

Step # 3: The Monkey Myth

Ah, yes—“But we can’t support evolution! It says we used to be monkeys!”

This is a common misconception, and it goes something like this:

Evolutionary theory says everything started out as goop. Then, simple life; then animals, and this means monkeys; and then we evolved from monkeys. It’s a straight line, from goo down to you.

Not quite.

The real theory is far more complicated, and anyone who’s read Darwin would understand that Darwin was looking for a way to account for the diversity of life, for the different genus, phylum, species, and so forth, that start out looking totally different, but wind up with very, very similar characteristics between species. A straight line from goo to you simply isn’t going to cover that. That’s where the “tree of life” comes in. It’s full of branches, like a family tree—the family tree of life.

We start with general matter. Then, simple life evolves in the oceans. When simple life begins diversifying, however, it didn’t all become one particular type of animal. We found fishes, and amphibians, and reptiles, and eventually mammals; and each of these classes changed, and each split off into even more directions. A turtle and a snake are both reptiles, but not alike. A frog is an amphibian, and doesn’t look like a reptile. Dolphins and monkeys are both mammals, but not the same. And humans are mammals—warm blooded, birth live young, feed young milk—but we evolved separately from monkeys.

Related, yes, but then all life on earth is related (and this will be explored more fully in the next step.) We got mammals, then and then we got all the different types of mammals—dolphins, monkeys, humans, cats, dogs, cows, whatever.

(I’m not an expert on this subject, by any means; if I’ve messed something up, please let me know, but I’m pretty sure that’s how it goes, at least in general.)

Step # 4: We’re All God’s Creatures verses The Crowing Glory of Creation.

The Bible presents two different views of man. Well, three, but two are rather closely related, so I’ll put them in the same category. One is the man is the crowning glory of all God’s creation; and this is why man has control over the birds and the beasts and so forth. In other words, man is the self-aware creature of God’s creation; the conscious, sentient, free-will-given, humans. The other view can be taken two ways, one nastier than the other, but both humbling. One is the, “we’re all God’s creatures” view; that used to be a real popular saying, used as a justification for kindness and such. The other view is the yes, we’re all God’s creatures, and man is the most wicked and sinful and lowly of them all view.

I think both of these views are important because they are part of a tradition much older than Christianity, the kinds of tradition that view all life as important, and interconnected. None of us are separate; we all connect with each other in the end. I probably got most of this from a life long obsession with the Lion King, and it seems to me such a beautiful and wonderful thing, that the earth—the universe—is such a brilliant, vibrant web of life, different, yes, but all the same because it’s all Life. I’m sure you know the part in the movie I’m talking about… “We are all connected,” said Mufassa, “in the great Circle of Life.”

No, we’re not descended from monkeys; but does it make us any less human because we’re related to them?

Have you ever heard the phrase, everybody in the world can be connected through six people? (After some of my experiences, I tell you, it’s probably true.) Well, all life can be connected through the Tree of Life metaphor used to explain how everything evolved and its relationships, through class and phylum and species and so forth.

Evolutionary biology talks a lot about homologous structures. That is, similar structures between species, with slight modifications. Evolution is a partial answer to this similarity, but so is, scientifically speaking, the idea of similar use. All birds have a similar type of wing, because they all need to be able to fly; a certain type of wing works best for flying, so they all have similar wings.

But based off the all-life-is-interconnected idea, here’s how I like to look at it:

I think the evolutionary idea about all life coming from one source, and all being related, fits perfectly with the religious worldview. The religious viewpoint is simple: God created us. How He did that is something we don’t know, can only guess at, but we’re all created in God’s image, yes? This is another bit not to be taken too literally. If all life tends to have the same homologous structures, then there must be a kind of blueprint for life. God took an essential idea, one simple bit of life, and from that made all of us. Maybe we are all created in God’s image in the sense that we are the physical manifestation of it means to be Life. This also helps with the idea that God is an active God, involved and immediate and real everywhere in the world, a personal God, not a distant, overseeing, cold deity. I’m not wording this very well, I’m afraid, but I think it’s a beautiful idea, and, until I come up with something better, my personal opinion.

But, to tie it all together: We are, in the sense that we are the conscious, sentient, self-aware creatures, the crowning glory of God’s creation. We are lowly, however, because we are not perfect—we are sinners. And we are not angels, or even close to being Perfection, like God; we are a part of Life, and although Life is beautiful, because it is human, mortal, it is fallible. So really, the views, and evolution’s scientific interpretation, work very well together.

Step # 5: Science Supports the Bible (or, William
Bell Riley: What He Got Right)

William Bell Riley was a Baptist, and one of the most influential anti-evolutionary people around. He was born in 1861 and didn’t retire from his active religious life until 1942; most of his activities were done in his 60s and 70s. And while many of his views are proven wrong as science proves creation science wrong, he had a few good points, and those are what I would like to share. (All of his quotes are taken from a volume that consists of nine pamphlets he wrote, collected to be an edition in a particular series.)

This is probably one of my favorite passages:

"There are mentioned in the first chapter of Genesis three creative periods relating themselves to life upon the earth, called the Third Day, the Fifth Day and the Sixth Day of Divine work. I consult my Dictionary and find it also recognizes three creative periods—Paleozoic, Mesozoic and Zenozoic. Is this a coincidence?”

Although Riley was definitely a literal interpreter of the Bible, I love how he makes that connection. This one is just as good:

“Proceeding now to the Acts of Creation we find a remarkable agreement between Genesis and Geology. They both begin with grass as the oldest form of life and come up through herbs, trees, fish, fowl, living things, and beasts of the earth to man as the last and most wonderful of God’s creation.” (Emphasis is in the original.)

Riley offers other examples of how what the Bible says is actually supported by modern science. Of course, modern for him is old hat stuff for us, but the point is made: difficulties arise only when we seek to find conflict, or think a certain reading of Scripture is the absolute and only unchangeable way in which it must be read.

In the same way “all roads lead to
Rome”, all of science can, for the true believer, be a joyous, outspoken testament to the genius and creative power of the Lord of the Universe.

Step # 6:  Randomness and Dead Ends

One of the bits about evolution that bothered me at first was the emphasis on random genetic mutation, and the “dead ends” of evolution, the sheer blindness of the whole process. This is particularly troubling if you pay attention to the naturalistic atheists who are also evolutionists, like Sagan,
Ruse, and Dawkins. But the answer to this particular riddle, is, of course, faith; and also one of my favorite words: ineffability.

Ineffable, ineffability—I just love that word, in all its forms. I’m really, really tempted to start quoting Good Omens here, because that’s where I got that word, but—I’ll refrain. There are undoubtedly those out there who haven’t yet had the opportunity to read that excellent book, and I’d hate to give anything away. Suffice it to say this:

God is outside total human understanding, yes? He’s got the big divine plan, and while we know bits of it, we know neither the day nor the hour… So, what looks like total chaos to us is probably just ineffable. We’re like the blind men and the elephant. (I love this story. I can use it on anything.)

Thee (or was it five? No matter) blind men are all placed around an elephant. One’s got the trunk, one the feet, one the tail, etc. When asked to describe the elephant, of course each of them gave a different description, and they began to argue among themselves. They couldn’t see the whole picture; only the small bit of what they could reach.

Humans, as far as understanding evolution—or anything, for that matter—are in pretty much the same boat. Our understanding is greatly limited; we can only see one small part of the overall picture. So what looks like randomness, might very well be the working of God in mysterious ways; what looks like chaos could be a beautiful interwoven part of the overall Divine Pattern.

I would like to clarify that this is not a “We can’t understand it so it must be supernatural” argument. This is the answer to the atheistic perspective that evolution is a completely unguided process. The atheist believes the goo we came from just appeared out of nowhere; the person of faith believes God created it, and through evolution, formed us from it. Sure, it might look random—but who are we, with our limited understanding, to judge? The point is to not let that be a persuasive atheistic argument. Because it isn’t.

Step # 7: Gilbert Keith Chesterton.

More commonly known as G.K. Chesterton, he’s definitely my favorite genius; or at least one of. I’d like to share a couple of his thoughts on science and evolution, because—well, there’s a reason he’s a genius.

First, the argument that the conflict doesn’t need to exist:

“Unfortunately, 19th-century scientists were just as ready to jump to the conclusion that any guess about nature was an obvious fact, as were 17th-century sectarians to jump to the conclusion that any guess about Scripture was the obvious explanation . . . . and this clumsy collision of two very impatient forms of ignorance was known as the quarrel of Science and Religion.”

Second, the logic argument:

“It is absurd for the Evolutionist to complain that it is unthinkable for an admittedly unthinkable God to make everything out of nothing, and then pretend that it is more thinkable that nothing should turn itself into anything.”
Gotta love Chesterton.

Step # 8: Conclusion

Well, there you have it: seven easy steps for reconciling the supposed contradictions between faith and science. Undoubtedly, more connections and conclusions can be drawn, and should I come up with or hear about some absolutely must-share thought, I’ll probably add comments as updates, just to complete the picture a little more.

Oh, and if you want you could check my other evolution-related posts: Creationism and Evolution Don’t Have to Be Mutually Exclusive (which you could consider the forerunner of this post, I guess) and Evolution verses ID: The Misplaced Debate. You could also check out A Question for Our Times, but I don’t recommend it; it was my oratory sophomore year, and I edited it greatly—but never wrote the changes down, and honestly don’t remember what I did with it. So it’s still confusing and not quite how it should be.

Well, that’s it—as if this isn’t long enough. Thanks for reading.