Though I grew up in a nominally Catholic family, and went to Mass most Saturdays, I grew up affirming evolution. Like most boys, I like dinosaurs and cavemen. We had the Time Life series of books on science, and I spent lots of time reading about the theory of evolution (sadly I’ve engaged in debates with people whether it was a theory, a hypothesis etc. but I don’t care what you call as long as you don’t call it a fact). In school we watched those videos about the moths in England near the factories and other stories of evolution within a species. I had no reason to doubt that this was an accurate interpretation of the data and explanation for our existence on this planet. In fact, I did not doubt it was true.
Off to Boston University (no, not Boston College the more famous Catholic institution down the street that we usually beat in hockey). I was required to take a lab science. I hate lab sciences. I inevitably mess up the experiments. But just prior to my sophomore year, a class caught my eye. It was …. Bioastronomy and the Search for Extraterrestial Life. It was a lab science, but one without experiments! I was all over that class!
The premise of the course was that the only way to determine if the possibility there was life on other planets was to study how life supposedly came to exist on this planet. As a result we studied astronomy and evolution to arrive at an equation to determine that possibility.
A liberal blog that decided to make fun of my in this matter among others, figured that the professor didn’t do a very good job. I think the professor did a fine job communicating the material to the converted. But something happened to me. I began to see all the factors that were vital to the existence of life. At the end of the class there was a 1 in 10 to the 26th power chance of there being life (or something like that). That is 1 followed by 26 zeroes. That seemed quite unlikely to me.
Then as you consider large scale evolution in light of the laws of thermodynamics … I began to see problems. Where did the energy come from to move from a less complex system to a more complex system? Why was there more order instead of less? I saw evidence of design. I realized it took more faith to believe in evolution than it did in a Creator. I was not yet a Christian, merely a confused theist who had some exposure to Christianity.
Often, children raised in a Christian home go off to the “big, bad secular university” and have their faith pulled out from under them. In reality they were living off their parents’ faith, not their own. I was essentially secular, and went off to the “big, bad secular university” and had my secularism pulled out from under me.
At the same time as this internal revolution, I had a relationship fall apart. She dumped me, but I could see how my own selfishness was a prime factor in driving her away from me. Could this Creator care about how I lived? Having essentially agreed to the Argument from Design that there was a God, I began to believe He was personal and ethical. I was in deep weeds.
But I remembered the liturgy I had heard nearly every week as a child: “Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world, have mercy on us.” Of course! The Creator is the same as the God of the Bible, which incidentally starts off with creation. And this God has provided salvation through faith in his son who died on the Cross.
So, while on Christmas break, broken by my dismantled personal life, I asked God to forgive me. I also asked him to show me how to live, recognizing that I had thoroughly botched it so far with a rather lengthy list of sins I do not care to share here. Suddenly the previously obscure Bible began to make sense to me. Suddenly I was “unable” to commit certain sins associated with my undoing (don’t worry, I don’t believe in perfectionism for many other sins still remain). It was like an invisible buffer zone had been erected. I can’t explain it. But I had moved from believing in large scale evolution (evolution between species rather than within species) to believing that a holy & loving God made the universe and humanity to glorify and enjoy him forever. Where so many saw evolution, I now saw God- my misplaced faith in evolution was now placed in my Creator and Redeemer. This is not because I am smarter (or dumber) than other people, but rather that God “made his light shine in (my) heart to give (me) the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ. (2 Cor. 4:6)”
That’s a pretty interesting conversion. I’m glad that evolution led you to Christianity.
Have you considered re-evaluating evolution through the eyes of faith? Once you strip down a lot of the philosophical naturalism that needlessly comes with it, it’s actually a really beautiful thing to behold.
I enjoy your posts. Please keep them up!
“But I had moved from believing in large scale evolution (evolution between species rather than within species) to believing that a holy & loving God made the universe and humanity to glorify and enjoy him forever.”
Your holy and loving God did not make humanity. People developed from other animals, just like every other species living today. Our evolutionary relationship with the other ape species has been proven beyond any doubt. This fact has been proven many times. For example the evidence for the idea people and chimps share an ancestor couldn’t possibly be more powerful.
Here’s an example, and there’s a lot more powerful evidence that would take a person a lifetime to study.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanog
“Humans and chimpanzees share ten NANOG pseudogenes, all in the same places: one duplication pseudogene and nine retropseudogenes. Of the nine shared NANOG retropseudogenes, two lack the poly-(A) tails characteristic of most retropseudogenes, indicating copying errors occurred during their creation. Due to the high improbability that the same pseudogenes (copying errors included) would exist in the same places in two unrelated genomes, evolutionary biologists point to NANOG and its pseudogenes as providing formidable evidence of common descent between humans and chimpanzees.”
I bet that information isn’t in your worthless Bible.
I don’t take similarity as proof. Sorry to disagree with you. High improbability on both accounts. Naturalism couldn’t bear the weight of such high improbability for me, but apparently it can for you.
Our presuppositions often point us in particular directions. Your presuppositions against Scripture point you toward natualism. But, you seem bitter about it. Any particular reason you are so angry that I don’t agree with you?
As I looked over the info on NANOG and pseudogenes I had an interesting thought: how many psuedogenes does the average person and chimp have?
This is a significant question for me (for which I didn’t find an answer) to determine if the presence of 10 similar psuedogenes is statistically significant. If we had 100 pseudogenes, that would be highly significant. 1,000 … not so significant.
A simple number, 10, bears no meaning outside of its context. Though it gets folks excited.
One of the issues for me, as expressed by Cornelius Van Til, is that we often try to interpret the evidence in our world on our own. As a result, we typically misinterpret such information because of our finitude and our sinfulness. We have blindspots and commitments that keep us from apprehanding or believing the truth.
The Scriptures Bob despises, offer the proper interpretation of the data we find. Fallen man wants to figure it out on its own. Redeemed man recognizes that we can’t put it all together on our own.
Bottom line: our assumptions, preconceptions etc matter! They will lead us down a path, often to our peril.
Greg. I’m not a theistic evolutionist. Sorry. I just can’t seem to get there so some wiser than I have.
Cavman,
Thank you for the reply. I know what you are saying about preconceptions.
As a fellow student of scripture, I understand fully your desire to properly represent and interpret scripture. In the past I have had to reconsider assumptions of mine that I had previously held to with certainty.
One of these concerned how the creation account was understood by the Israelites who received it. I found that it was not as obvious as it seemed. It’s more complex than I ever had imagined, and answered questions that I never thought to ask. I have found this experience to be very common to the modern Christian encountering it for the first time.
Would you be interested in learning more about this? I may not be able enough to helpfully explain it, but I know of trusted sources that can.
Greg,
I guess that would depend on what sources/interpretations you are thinking about.
I like the framework hypothesis (Meredith Kline’s work in particular), which takes the nature of the covenant and meaning for the Exodus audience. I don’t see this as incompatible with a straight meaning of the text. Gen 1-2 can be understood on a number of complementary levels.
Yes, Genesis 1 is not meant to be scientific, but it is meant to be truthful. It is an accurate account of what God did, who He is, and how the ‘gods’ of the Egyptians are created & subject to the present, authoritative & powerful Lord (John Frame’s work here).
Though I affirm the reliability & accuracy of the Creation account in Gen 1-2 (2 views with a different focus by the same author: first creation in general, then man in particular), I recognize much of the depth of meaning there.
I can affirm God controlling evolution w/in a species (small scale evolution) to, say, account for the variations in race/ethnicity among humans. But I don’t affirm God utilizing evolution between species (large scale evolution). We have enough ‘evidence’ for the former, but I think we lack evidence (like transitional creatures) of the latter.
but I ramble on….
So, who were you thinking about?
Cavman,
A number of authors have written recent books on the subject. I’ll focus on those whose primary concern is scripture.
1. Peter Enns – Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament
2. John H. Walton – Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament: Introducing the Conceptual World of the Hebrew Bible
3. John H. Walton – NIV Application Commentary: Genesis
4. Bruce K. Waltke – An Old testament Theology
These three authors make the case that the creation account in Genesis is essentially a reinterpretation of Ancient Near Eastern cosmology with God at its center. The ancient Israelites were no more advanced in their understanding of the universe than their neighbors, and the creation account perfectly reflects this knowledge, as opposed to anything we moderns try to force upon it.
Walton, whom I think is best informed to speak on this subject, recently gave a talk called “Genesis One as Ancient Cosmology”, found here (http://www.logos.com/lectures) under the June 23rd entry.
The writer of this blog (http://www.blog.beyondthefirmament.com/) does a really good job at distilling this viewpoint and helping others to understand it.
His post here (http://www.blog.beyondthefirmament.com/2008/01/29/pca-report-on-creation/) really explains the heart of the matter, and why it is important to view the creation account in this manner.
Finally, he also made three videos called “Does Science Contradict the Bible?” found here (http://www.blog.beyondthefirmament.com/video-presentations/does-science-contradict-the-bible/)
He discusses the development of astronomy, from Biblical times until now, going further into the cosmology of the ancients, and how it affected the writing of Genesis 1-2. Of course, he also talks about science too, though I just want to emphasize the ancient near eastern cosmology at the moment.
I hope these are interesting to you. Let me know if you have any questions.