Book Review: Saving Darwin

Is it possible to be a Christian and believe in evolution? Many Christians say it isn't. But the fact is that there are Christians who also believe in evolution. One of these is Karl W Giberson who once was a creationist but now believes in evolution and remains a Christian. In his book Saving Darwin: How to Be a Christian and Believe in Evolution he provides an incisive, cogent, and compelling argument in support of evolution and its compatibility with Christian belief. On his web site he explains why he wrote the book:

'I wrote Saving Darwin to build a bit of a bridge between two cultures at odds with each other: the scientific community and American evangelicalism. I have lived in both cultures and am dismayed at how far apart they are. In this climate of misunderstanding the ‘naturalism’ of science looks anti-religious and the anti-evolutionism of evangelicalism looks uninformed. I hope to illuminate the tension that divide these two communities and to contribute to improved communications.'

Giberson's book certainly fulfills his objectives. In his first chapter Dissolution of a Fundamentalist he shares his life journey from his hero-worship of Henry Morris (author of the classic texts of "scientific creationism"), through his teenage fundamentalism, and on to his increasing doubts about creationism and persuasion that evolution is the best explanation for origins of life on planet earth.

One of the great benefits of Saving Darwin is Giberson's superbly engaging and clear survey of the creation/evolution debate in America. He separates fact from fiction in relation to Darwin's developing theory of evolution and his faith in God and the birth and development of fundamentalism. Giberson explores 'Darwin's Dark Companions' — those individuals and movements who have coopted Darwinian evolution to justify such evils as genocide or amorality. According to Giberson, many of these have abused or misused evolution for their own purposes and evolution has inappropriately suffered from guilt by association.

The creation/evolution debate has had a long and prominent history in American courts. There is an excellent chapter telling that story from the Scopes trial right up until the recent Dover ruling. Following this is a history of the rise of "scientific creationism" which has now transformed into the Intelligent Design movement including a discussion of why Giberson believes the Intelligent Design argument fails. Despite Giberson's critique of Intelligent Design, he also acknowledges that evolution speaks ambiguously and different people hear it saying different things leading to the fact that people residing in 'profoundly incompatible worldviews' can accept it.

In an interesting chapter entitled How to Be Stupid, Wicked, and Insane Giberson turns his attention to the increasingly strident and often religious sounding rhetoric of some evolutionists. As far as Giberson is concerned the evolution/creation debate is more a culture war about who is going to determine, for society, the ultimate nature of reality. On one side you have the likes of Richard Dawkins who has explicitly declared his purpose to be the destruction of religion. And on the other side you have those like Philip Johnson who wants to bring down naturalism. This culture war is really not about origins at all but more about the imposing of a worldview from either side on the rest of society.

Finally, Giberson provides a summary of the multiple lines of evidence in support of evolution. Giberson believes that evolution is true and an 'expression of God's creativity, although in a way that is not captured by the scientific view of the world.' (p. 216) Giberson affirms the inability of science to remove mystery from what is. No matter how much we learn there will always be room for God because God is not the longtime abandoned 'God of the gaps'. God is the ground of everything that exists and, whatever we discover about the natural world, there is no reason to exclude God from reality.

Perhaps the most important conclusion we can come to on the matter of origins (and indeed anything we believe we know) is a profound humility as we seek to answer the questions we have about the universe. In his introduction, Giberson quotes Michael Ruse who wrote a book called Can a Darwinian Be a Christian? Ruse wrote:

If you are a Darwinian or a Christian or both, remember that we are mere humans and not God. We are middle-range primates with the adaptations to get down out of the trees, and to live on the plains in social groups. We do not have powers which will necessarily allow us to peer into the ultimate mysteries. If nothing else, these reflections should give us a little modesty about what we can and cannot know, and a little humility before the unknown.

Whatever side of the origins debate you find yourself on, remembering that we are mere humans and not God may be the most important thing we can remember. The arrogance and dogmatism at the two extremes of this debate do not seem to me to be appropriate for those who follow the teachings of Christ.

Saving Darwin is a powerful book that provides Christians who struggle with the discoveries of science and tension with their Christian faith with a middle way between two extremes. It is an important contribution to this most significant cultural conversation. It won't answer all your questions and you may find aspects of it with which you wish to disagree. But Giberson provides an important perspective worth considering. If nothing else, Christians must cease accusing other Christians who believe in evolution of not being truly Christian.

Related Links

• Karl Giberson's website
• Criticism of the book by William Dembski - an Intelligent Design proponent

Technorati Tags: creationism,evolution,Christianity

Creationist Museum

Have a look at the news story below about a new Creationist Museum being built in the US. A couple of things to notice:

1. The museum designers completely ignore scientific knowledge about the age of the earth and claim the Bible provides the age of the earth - it doesn’t. This is a museum of religious belief - not a scientific enterprise. According to one of the interviewees, the Bible is the absolute source of all knowledge. Another person states that, to work at this museum, you need to believe in God and agree with all the doctrines. This is a religious group even though it might be trying to make itself sound scientific.
2. They go way beyond the Bible. The museum indulges in pure conjecture about when dinosaurs existed. The Bible doesn’t even mention dinosaurs. Nor does it state an age of the earth. So this museum doesn’t even stick to what the Bible says.
3. See my post coming soon about the options available for understanding the relationship between the Bible and theology. The one offered in this museum argues that the Bible should come before any other type of inquiry when trying to understand the natural world and science must conform to it. This leads to a religious pseudo-science.

Here’s the news story:

In the Beginning (Economist)

The Economist has published an article called In the beginning which describes the spread of the creationism vs evolution conflict beyond the borders of America (where it has been predominately situated until now). The story is in response to the global publishing of The Atlas of Creation by prolific Turkish author. According to the article,

THE “Atlas of Creation” runs to 770 pages and is lavishly illustrated with photographs of fossils and living animals, interlaced with quotations from the Koran. Its author claims to prove not only the falsehood of Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection, but the links between “Darwinism” and such diverse evils as communism, fascism and terrorism. In recent weeks the “Atlas de la Création” has been arriving unsolicited and free of charge at schools and universities across French-speaking Europe. It is the latest sign of a revolt against the theories of Darwin, on which virtually the whole of modern biology is based, that is gathering momentum in many parts of the world.

The article includes a brief history of the conflict between evolution and creationism (unfortunately calling it a conflict over ’religion and reason’). It is a biased history which needs to be balanced by reading books such as, Doubts About Darwin and Darwin Strikes Back. It is interesting and significant, though, that the conflict over origins has broadened beyond Christianity and beyond the United States with potentially dangerous consequences.

Seeing the Light -- Of Science (Salon)

Ronald Numbers -- a former Seventh-day Adventist and author of the definitive history of creationism -- discusses his break with the church, whether creationists are less intelligent and why Galileo wasn't really a martyr. Read his interview here.

Genesis - literal or symbolic?

On a discussion forum, a poster recently wrote (in part):

If you choose to disregard the first two chapters of the bible in Genesis that specifically state that God rested the 7th day of creation and want to interpret it in a way that you see fit by your own reasoning that is your choice.

I cannot in good conscience - in full assurance of God's grace and acknowledgement of His Sovereignty in creation - forgo His stated word in scripture against the claims" of science. We either are or are not his created beings... sorta kinda maybe doesnt work for me.'

People who criticise those who wish to read Genesis 1 and 2 as symbolic/metaphorical constantly imply that they are rejecting what Scripture says. This is an incorrect assertion. Those who wish to read Genesis in this manner are not suggesting that we disregard the first two chapters of the bible -- the point is that we need to interpret it correctly. These interpreters may be wrong about their interpretation -- but it is important to recognise that they are just as concerned to respond to the authority of Scripture as the literal readers are. (In any case, to describe people as literal or metaphorical interpreters is too simplistic). Augustine once pitted the claims of science that there were humans living in the Antipodes against Scripture. He said it was absurd and impossible that this was so because Scripture didn't teach it. Science proved his interpretation of Scripture wrong. Scripture didn't teach what he thought it did. There was nothing wrong with science in this case. There was nothing wrong with Scripture, either. The problem was Augustine and his interpretation. Too many people only see two components in the alleged warfare between science and Scripture:

Scripture ---------------- Science

They argue that if science says something and Scripture says something different, then Scripture must be right and Science wrong. The problem is that there is a third component that many are unwilling to consider -- the interpreter:

Science -------------- Interpreter --------------Scripture

The issue is not whether Scripture is right about science or not. And it is not about whether science is right about Scripture or not. Scripture and Science are concerned with different issues. The question is whether the interpreter is right about science and Scripture. Science deals primarily in observations of empirical data which must be interpreted to arrive at conclusions -- it's a tentative, dynamic, ever-improving process of understanding. Scripture deals with ultimate concerns and must be interpreted for Christians to come to conclusions. It, too, is a tentative, dynamic, ever-improving process of inquiry. There are two possible issues to consider:

1. The scientist may interpret the empirical data incorrectly.
2. The Bible student may interpret the biblical data incorrectly.

Far too many Christians assume that their interpretation of Scripture is correct and if any scientific statement disagrees with their interpretation of Scripture then science must be wrong. There are two potential problems that need to be corrected:

1. A naive understanding of science.
2. A naive understanding of Scripture.

Both of these problems reside in the interpreter. Here's my approach: I am not a scientist so am unqualified to pass judgment on many scientific findings. Despite the fact that I may understand some aspects of science, I have to admit to not being expert enough to follow some of the complicated reasoning around scientific theories of origin. I have made it my business, however, to study the nature of science (the philosophy of science). In fact, a significant part of my responsibilities as a supervisor of higher degree students is to understand the nature of scientific inquiry. In my view, many of the statements about science made by many, many Christians show a complete lack of understanding about what science actually is and how it actually works. As a Christian, I have been studying the Bible all my life and, as part of that process, have studied the process of biblical interpretation (hermeneutics) and so, in comparison, know much more about the Bible than I do about science (I'd like to know a whole lot more!). Scientists need to make sure that they get their side of the story right. Christians need to make sure that they get their side of the story right. Scientists may be wrong in their conclusions. Christians may be wrong in their conclusions. OUR job as Christians is to get our conclusions about Scripture correct. Some Christians need to stop suggesting that, because a fellow Christian says (or implies) that Christians need to make sure our interpretation of Genesis is correct it means they are denying the reliability of Scripture. The implication that interpreting Genesis in any other way than a literalistic, scientific, historical account of origins (in the way 21st century people understand science and history) is somehow being untrue to Scripture is a false implication. In all biblical interpretation, what is important to consider is:

1. the original authorial intent - the purpose of the text.
2. the original historical and cultural context -- understanding the text as the original readers would have.
3. the genre of the text (poetry? history? narrative? etc?)

Open up at least three commentaries (preferably from different perspectives) and have a look at the sections on authorship, genre, culture, and history of Genesis. Discover that these questions are not as simple as we sometimes try to make them appear to be!

Genesis 1-3 contains incredible truth such as (adapted from Waltke):

1. God is the reason and power behind the whole mysterious universe.
2. Human society is in a mess because people have left God out of their reckoning.
3. God is patient and forgiving, but God is also Judge of all disobedience.
4. Fallible human beings can be used to achieve God's purposes.
5. Faith means trusting God alone and following God even when doing so seems crazy.

You don't need to read Genesis as science to believe these important truths.

Moving Past Creationist Roots (Geotimes)

Many Christians adopt a warfare model of the relationship between Genesis 1 and science. Stephen Godfrey, curator of paleontology at the Calvert Marine Museum, has written an interesting personal perspective on this issue in his article for Geotimes, Moving past Creationist Roots. He argues that,

In the end, religion and science do not represent universal opposites. To quote Proverbs 25:2: “It is the glory of God to conceal a matter; it is the glory of kings to search out a matter.” And from King Solomon: “God has hidden countless fascinating and wonderful things in his creation, and he wants us to delight in discovering them.” So, all those who are called to scientific enterprise should pursue that calling without fear or doubt, but rather with joy and enthusiasm. There is no script that you need to follow, no predetermined conclusion with which your results need to square. If there were, God would not really have “hidden” these treasures for us to find. They’re out there — go get them!

You can read the whole article here.