Evolution: Part III

[This blog post follows on the heels of Evolution: Part II]

A quick perusal of the first two postings in this blog show me (with greater or lesser persuasion) taking two parties to task.

In the first posting I took pure evolutionist to task — or, more to the point, anyone who fawningly hovers at the foot of that pedestal, thinking the theory of evolution (true or not) to be a principle to celebrated or given any honor to.

In the second posting I took conservative evangelical Christians to task — or, more to the point, anyone who fawningly and unquestioningly adheres to the (shall we say?) difficult position that Adam and Eve were the first two humans and sole ancestors of all who live today.

Having with two strokes alienated atheistic evolutionists and conservative Christians alike, it might be reasonably asked whom I have left to offend.

The answer is obvious.

Evolutionary Creationists.

Now it might have been assumed that I feel a great affinity for this group of souls. These are men and women who believe in God. Fellow Christians. Followers of Christ. And yet they are also scientists. People who appreciate scientific discoveries and accomplishments. These are people like Francis Collins, who (as the November 23rd Economist article "All about Adam" notes) is an "atheist-turned-Christian who directs the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the American government's biomedical research agency."

Surely these are the folk I agree with?

Well...

Not so fast.

Why the hesitancy? Well, let's read the words of that Economist editorial, describing an advocate of Evolutionary Creationism. "Mr Lamoureux is a prominent member of the 'evolutionary creation' movement, which credits God with creating Darwinian evolution and overseeing its workings (a view shared by, among others, the pope)."

So this is great. If I stand against this viewpoint, I'm aligned not merely in opposition to Francis Collins and Mr Lamoureux (whoever he is) but also the pope.

Well. There you have it.

But be that as it may, let's review what it is that they are supporting, and what I am in opposition to. What, exactly, is this Theory of Evolution?

Let's be real. I'm not a Ph.D in biology, so if I go beyond the briefest of details I will head into biological heresy no slower than a Sunday-School child would head into theological heresy when asked to define the Trinity.

So we'd better keep these words short!

But to the point. Evolution, as a theory and/or operating principle, holds to at least a minimum of the following notions, jumbled together: random mutation, survival of the fittest, and a competition to propagate.

Could there ever be an aggregation of principles more distinctly aligned against all that we have learned at the feet of Jesus?

Could there?

Random? REALLY? What exactly did God entrust to chance? Nothing on the grand scale, certainly, and some would argue nothing at all. Evolution purports to explain us. That's a rather important outcome. Did God leave that to chance too?

Survival of the fittest? REALLY? Is that what Jesus came to teach? Was he not the fittest of all? Did he not die sooner than many?

A competition to propagate? REALLY? Were we not taught by both Jesus and St. Paul that the greatest souls of all are those who die to self and live to serve others? Did either Jesus or Paul (with apologies to Dan Brown) leave any offspring?

I would love to know what exactly among the many driving assumptions of evolutionary biology are the ones that Christian advocates of Evolutionary Creationism think most closely describe the priorities and principles of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Which ones?

The editorial I keep quoting from the November 23rd edition of The Economist ends with a quotation from Paul Broun, a Georgia Republican who sits on the House science committee. Evolution, Mr Broun says, is a lie "straight from the pit of hell". As the Economist put it, "That's pandering. Not piety." And I agree.

But I would not disagree with anyone who said that using evolutionary theory to make personal moral decisions is a path leading (more than quickly) straight to hell. That I'd agree with. Emphatically.

Evolutionary theory supports the notion of cheating on your spouse. (If you can do so discretely.)

Evolutionary theory supports the notion of killing the children of neighborhood women. (If you can do so without getting caught. Then you can work on impregnating the women with children of your own. All on the sly, of course.)

Evolutionary theory supports the notion of [fill in the blank] provided it results in the propagation of your own genes.

Evolutionary theory is the veritable deification of self. Propagate yourself and let the rest of creation be damned. Hell on wheels. That, my friends, is the heart of the theory of evolution. And who, really, can argue that there is not a fair bit of that about. More than a bit.

Do my words sound extreme? Check the papers for the inner-city boyfriend who killed his girlfriend's toddler (a child sired by a prior boyfriend).

But is it what God Himself would have for us?

No. That's why the papers carry the story about the toddler's death. Evolutionary theory has something to say about why it happened. But our God-given consciences tell us why it should not have happened.

And that my friends is why I find myself (on this topic) at odds with atheists, conservative Christians and liberal Christians alike.

I will not stand as an Evolutionist and scorn Creationists.

I will not stand as a Creationist and scorn Evolutionists.

And finally, I will not stand as an Evolutionary Creationist either.

So those are three perspectives I do not hold. What, it may be asked, is the perspective I do hold?

I am a Creationist who sees Evolution at work in our world.

And it's been at work for a long time.

Evolutionary behavior is coincidentally enough, as old as the Fall.

Yes, I have come to believe that the Fall has a lot more to do with the first step taken in a "survival of the fittest" manner than with anything else.

I associate Evolution itself with the Fall. The deification of self is at the heart of both concepts.

I'm sure this perspective would prevent me from attending Wheaton College, let alone teaching there. This perspective also would prevent me from holding membership in most of the churches I might actually want to attend. (Ironically, the many churches that wouldn't mind this perspective a bit are the kind of churches I'd avoid like the plague.)

I do take comfort in the fact that Jesus himself never referred to Adam as a single soul, but that is small comfort. Can a man be more at risk than to seemingly be at odds with the words of St. Paul himself? By glossing the traditional view on Adam and Eve I seem to be in opposition to St. Paul's teachings as we interpret them today.

Perhaps I'm wildly mistaken. Deeply in error. Perhaps so.

Or perhaps five hundred years from now these words of mine will be as uncontroversial as the notion that planets circle the sun rather than it being the other way around.

We no longer feel we're opposing God's word when we acknowledge that the earth moves around the sun.

Perhaps one day this perspective on origins won't be widely viewed as opposition to God's word either.

In any case, when I am being honest, this is where I stand on the matter.

But let my final words on this topic cut to the core. The core is this: I trust that I serve a God who loves me and the historical Jesus who has saved me. God will forgive me, even if these views shared here reveal me to be misled and/or deceived. I need salvation more than I need a correct perspective on origins.