Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:29, 24 January 2006

Part of a series on
Creationism
History
Types
Young Earth Old Earth day-age gap progressive Neo-creationism
Biblical cosmology
Book of Genesis creation narrative as an allegory Omphalos hypothesis
Creation science
Created kind Flood geology Creationist cosmologies Intelligent design
Rejection of evolution by religious groups
History Public education "Teach the Controversy"
Religious views
Non-creation Creator in Buddhism Jainism and non-creationism Evolution Theistic evolution Buddhist Catholic Hindu Islamic Jewish Mormon
v t e

Theistic evolution, less commonly known as evolutionary creationism, is the general belief that some or all classical religious teachings about God and creation are compatible with some or all of the scientific theory of evolution.

Theistic evolution holds that the acceptance of evolutionary biology is not fundamentally different from the acceptance of other sciences, such as astronomy or meteorology. The latter two are also based on a methodological assumption of naturalism to study and explain the natural world, without assuming the existence or nonexistence of the supernatural. In this view, it is held both religiously and scientifically correct to reinterpret ancient religious texts in line with modern-day scientific findings about evolution. This synthesis of the teleology underlying faith and religious teachings with science can still be described as creationism in holding that divine intervention brought about the origin of life or that divine Laws govern formation of species, but in the creation-evolution controversy its proponents generally take the "evolutionist" side. For this reason, some on both sides prefer to use the term "theistic evolution" to describe this belief.

The term evolutionary creationism is used in particular for beliefs in which God transcends normal time and space, with nature having no existence independent of His will. It allows interpretations consistent with both a literal Genesis and objective science, in which, for example, the events of creation occurred outside time as we know it.

Spectrum of viewpoints

Evolutionary creationism is a variant of creationism which accepts microevolution and macroevolution while retaining a theistic interpretation of evolution. Theistic evolution is accepted (or at least not rejected) by major Christian churches, including Roman Catholicism; some Judaism denominations; and other religious organizations that lack a literalist stance concerning holy scriptures. With this approach toward evolution, scriptural creation stories are typically interpreted as being allegorical in nature. Many individuals stress the unreliability of Genesis as a scientific text, believing that God guided a evolution of life up to humans.

As cited below, several religious organizations accept evolutionary theory, though their related theological interpretations vary. Additionally, individuals or movements within such organizations may not accept evolution, and stances on evolution may have adapted (or evolved) throughout history. See also sections of Abrahamic creationism on "The Christian Critique of Creationism" and "The western world outside the United States".

Deism

Deism is belief in a God or first cause based on reason, rather than on faith or revelation. Most Deists believe that God does not interfere with the world or create miracles. Some deists believe that a Divine Creator initiated a universe in which evolution occurred, by designing the system and the natural laws, although many deists believe that God also created life itself, before allowing it to be subject to evolution. They find it to be undignified and unwieldy for a deity to make constant adjustments rather than letting evolution elegantly adapt organisms to changing environments.

One good example of this is the recent (December 2004) conversion to deism of the former atheist philosopher Professor Antony Flew, who now argues that recent research into the origins of life supports the theory that some form of intelligence was involved. Whilst accepting subsequent Darwinian evolution, Flew argues that this cannot explain the complexities of the origins of life. He has also stated that the investigation of DNA "has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce , that intelligence must have been involved."

Some Deists contend that God ceased to exist after setting in motion the laws of the universe.

Other variants

Another perspective is that a Divine Creator engineers quantum events, in a manner which is apparently random, thus exercising authoritative power over nature.

Alternatively, a Divine Creator may intervene through miracles, in the creation of souls, in an afterlife, or ways beyond known physics.

Christianity

• Anglicanism Although Anglicans (Episcopal Church, Church of England) believe that the Bible "contains all things necessary to salvation," nontheless "science and Christian theology can complement one another in the quest for truth and understanding." Specifically on the subject of creation/evolution, Anglicans view "Big Bang cosmology" as being "in tune with both the concepts of creation out of nothing and continuous creation." See the above link for more information.
• Evolution and the Roman Catholic Church:
  • The Roman Catholic Church in 1950 under the leadership of Pope Pius XII, in the papal encyclical Humani Generis, stated that the "Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter" with the stipulations that souls are direct creations of God, and all true humans are descendants of particular historical individuals, Adam and Eve. This doctrine is known as "monogenism" versus "polygenism".
  • In October 1996, Pope John Paul II stated that "new knowledge has led to the recognition in the theory of evolution of more than a hypothesis" and restated from Humani Generis that "if the human body takes its origin from pre-existent living matter, the spiritual soul is immediately created by God." However, as John Paul II recognized in his Message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, "In his Encyclical Humani generis , my predecessor Pius XII had already stated that there was no opposition between evolution and the doctrine of the faith about man and his vocation, on condition that one did not lose sight of several indisputable points." Thus, as a practical matter, evolution had been taught in Catholic primary and secondary schools, not to mention universities, for decades before 1996.
  • In July 2004, the International Theological Commission published a statement titled "Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God" on creation, evolution, and God's providence. The president of the commission was Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, then head of doctrine in the Catholic Church, who the following year became Pope Benedict XVI. The statement made explicit the Church's support of the findings of modern science and biological evolution, calling universal common descent "virtually certain," and that "even the outcome of a truly contingent natural process can nonetheless fall within God’s providential plan for creation." (See especially paragraphs 62-70).
  • In July 2005, in a controversial editorial Christoph Cardinal Schönborn of Vienna stated: "Evolution in the sense of common ancestry might be true, but evolution in the neo-Darwinian sense — an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection — is not..." (New York Times editorial, 7 July 2005) but this argument against "unguided evolution" has been contradicted by Cardinal Paul Poupard and Vatican astronomer Fr. George Coyne, and later clarified by Cardinal Schonborn himself in a series of catechetical lectures on the topic (to be published in book form). Schonborn's true position is that he has no problem with the natural sciences as such but wishes to preserve the Catholic teaching that God is the Creator, that faith and reason do not conflict, and that scientists need to be aware of and respect one another's worldviews. Catholic dogma obviously rejects an atheistic materialism (philosophical or metaphysical naturalism) that some have interpreted as the meaning of evolutionary science: "I see no difficulty in joining belief in the Creator with the theory of evolution, but under the prerequisite that the borders of scientific theory are maintained. In the citations given above (from Julian Huxley, Will Provine, Peter Atkins), it is unequivocally the case that such have been violated. When science adheres to its own method, it cannot come into conflict with faith. But perhaps one finds it difficult to stay within one's territory, for we are, after all, not simply scientists but also human beings, with feelings, who struggle with faith, human beings, who seek the meaning of life. And thus as natural scientists we are constantly and inevitably bringing in questions reflecting worldviews....I am thankful for the immense work of the natural sciences. Their furthering of our knowledge boggles the mind. They do not restrict faith in the creation; they strengthen me in my belief in the Creator and in how wisely and wonderfully He has made all things." (Cardinal Schonborn, 2 October 2005, "Creation and Evolution: To the Debate As It Stands")

Christian Justification for Evolution

Evolution contradicts a literal interpretation of Genesis; however, according to Catholicism; and most Protestant Churches, these days, Biblical Literalism is not mandatory. Some feel that seeing Genesis as a myth or as an allegory has been considered a "cop-out," and that it was always interpreted literally until biological evolution came and disproved it. Others would state that the concept of myth is not synonymous with being "false"; and that a myth is "a truth in unfamiliar clothing" (J.R.R. Tolkien, C.S. Lewis, and Owen Barfield all support this interpretation).

Historically, it is claimed that Biblical Literalism came about with the rise of Protestantism; before Protestantism, the Bible wasn't interpreted completely literally. Fr. Stanley Jaki, Benedictine priest, distinguished physicist and theologian, states in his Bible and Science (Christendom Press, 1996):

"Insofar as the study of the original languages of the Bible was severed from authoritative ecclesiastical preaching as its matrix, it fueled literalism....Biblical literalism taken for a source of scientific information is making the rounds even nowadays among creationists who would merit Julian Huxley's description of 'bibliolaters.' They merely bring discredit to the Bible as they pile grist upon grist on the mills of latter-day Huxleys, such as Hoyle, Sagan, Gould, and others. The fallacies of creationism go deeper than fallacious reasonings about scientific data. Where creationism is fundamentally at fault is its resting its case on a theological faultline: the biblicism constructed by the Reformers." (Jaki, pages 110-111)

Many Church Fathers believed that Genesis was history

However, the Russian Orthodox hieromonk Fr. Seraphim Rose has argued that the leading Orthodox saints such as Basil the Great, Gregory the Theologian, John Chrysostom and Ephraim the Syrian believed that Genesis should be treated as a historical account. [Genesis, Creation and Early Man, Saint Herman of Alaska Brotherhood, Platina, CA, 2000],.

For example, Basil rejected an allegorical interpretation in his Hexaëmeron, and affirmed 24-hour creation days:

I know the laws of allegory, though less by myself than from the works of others. There are those truly, who do not admit the common sense of the Scriptures, for whom water is not water, but some other nature, who see in a plant, in a fish, what their fancy wishes, who change the nature of reptiles and of wild beasts to suit their allegories, like the interpreters of dreams who explain visions in sleep to make them serve their own ends. For me grass is grass; plant, fish, wild beast, domestic animal, I take all in the literal sense. “For I am not ashamed of the Gospel” . Homily IX:1

“And there was evening and there was morning: one day.” And the evening and the morning were one day. Why does Scripture say “one day the first day”? Before speaking to us of the second, the third, and the fourth days, would it not have been more natural to call that one the first which began the series? If it therefore says “one day”, it is from a wish to determine the measure of day and night, and to combine the time that they contain. Now twenty-four hours fill up the space of one day—we mean of a day and of a night; and if, at the time of the solstices, they have not both an equal length, the time marked by Scripture does not the less circumscribe their duration. It is as though it said: twenty-four hours measure the space of a day, or that, in reality a day is the time that the heavens starting from one point take to return there. Thus, every time that, in the revolution of the sun, evening and morning occupy the world, their periodical succession never exceeds the space of one day. Homily II:8

Augustine

The "metaphorical/literal" distinction arose with the rise of the Scientific Revolution (although its source could be found in earlier writings, such as those of Herodotus). It was considered heretical to interpret the Bible literally at times (cf. Origen, St. Jerome), and Saint Augustine, one of the greatest theologians of the Catholic Church, was in fact the first person to propose a theory similar to evolution (cf. De Genesi ad litteram or The Literal Meaning of Genesis). He suggested that the Biblical text should not be interpreted literally if it contradicts what we know from science and our God-given reason. From an important passage on his "The Literal Interpretation of Genesis" (early fifth century, AD), St. Augustine wrote:

"It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation." (The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 1:19–20 )

"With the scriptures it is a matter of treating about the faith. For that reason, as I have noted repeatedly, if anyone, not understanding the mode of divine eloquence, should find something about these matters in our books, or hear of the same from those books, of such a kind that it seems to be at variance with the perceptions of his own rational faculties, let him believe that these other things are in no way necessary to the admonitions or accounts or predictions of the scriptures. In short, it must be said that our authors knew the truth about the nature of the skies, but it was not the intention of the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, to teach men anything that would not be of use to them for their salvation." (ibid, 2:9)

However, Augustine was a young earth creationist, explicitly rejecting contemporary ideas of a vast age:

Augustine: ‘Let us, then, omit the conjectures of men who know not what they say, when they speak of the nature and origin of the human race. … They are deceived, too, by those highly mendacious documents which profess to give the history of many thousand years, though, reckoning by the sacred writings, we find that not 6000 years have yet passed.’ [Augustine, Of the Falseness of the History Which Allots Many Thousand Years to the World’s Past, De Civitate Dei (The City of God) 12(10).

Pope John Paul II

Pope John Paul II wrote to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on the subject of cosmology and how to interpret Genesis:

"Cosmogony and cosmology have always aroused great interest among peoples and religions. The Bible itself speaks to us of the origin of the universe and its make-up, not in order to provide us with a scientific treatise, but in order to state the correct relationships of man with God and with the universe. Sacred Scripture wishes simply to declare that the world was created by God, and in order to teach this truth it expresses itself in the terms of the cosmology in use at the time of the writer. The Sacred Book likewise wishes to tell men that the world was not created as the seat of the gods, as was taught by other cosmogonies and cosmologies, but was rather created for the service of man and the glory of God. Any other teaching about the origin and make-up of the universe is alien to the intentions of the Bible, which does not wish to teach how heaven was made but how one goes to heaven." (Pope John Paul II, 3 October 1981 to the Pontifical Academy of Science, "Cosmology and Fundamental Physics")

The "Clergy Letter" Project, drafted in 2004, and signed by thousands of Christian clergy supporting evolution and faith, states:

"We the undersigned, Christian clergy from many different traditions, believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist. We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as 'one theory among others' is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children. We believe that among God’s good gifts are human minds capable of critical thought and that the failure to fully employ this gift is a rejection of the will of our Creator." (An Open Letter Concerning Religion and Science)

Islam

Some Muslims believe in evolutionary creationism, especially among the Liberal movements within Islam. More literalist Muslims, including followers of Wahhabism, reject origin of species from a common ancestor by evolution as incompatible with the Qur'an. However, even amongst Muslims who accept evolution, many believe that humanity was a special creation by God. For example, Shaikh Nuh Ha Mim Keller, an American Muslim and specialist in Islamic law has argued in Islam and Evolution that a belief in macroevolution is not incompatible with Islam, as long as it is accepted that "Allah is the Creator of everything" (Qur'an 13:16) and that Allah specifically created humanity (in the person of Adam; Qur'an 38:71-76). Shaikh Keller cleary states in his conclusion however:

"As for claim that man has evolved from a non-human species, this is unbelief (kufr) no matter if we ascribe the process to Allah or to "nature," because it negates the truth of Adam's special creation that Allah has revealed in the Qur'an. Man is of special origin, attested to not only by revelation, but also by the divine secret within him, the capacity for ma'rifa or knowledge of the Divine that he alone of all things possesses. By his God-given nature, man stands before a door opening onto infinitude that no other creature in the universe can aspire to. Man is something else."

One of the main criticisms of evolution by Muslims is their assertion that it was created by and supports atheism, and so it is argued that it should be rejected (see for example, Why Darwinism is Incompatible With the Qur'an).

See also Islamic creationism.

Judaism

In general, the major Jewish denominations accept theistic evolution, with the exception of some Orthodox groups. The general approach of Judaism is that the creation account in the Torah is not to be taken as a literal text, but rather as a symbolic work. Indeed, Maimonides, one of the great interpreters of Torah in the Middle Ages, wrote that if science and Torah were misaligned, it was either because science was not understood or the Torah was misinterpreted. Maimonides argued that if science proved a point, then the finding should be accepted and inform the interpretation of scripture.

See also Jewish creationism.

Evolutionary biologists who were also theists

Although evolutionary biologists have often been agnostics (most notably Thomas Huxley and Charles Darwin) or atheists (most notably Richard Dawkins), from the outset many have had a belief in some form of theism. These have included Alfred Russel Wallace (1823–1913), who in a joint paper with Charles Darwin in 1858, proposed the theory of evolution by natural selection. Wallace was effectively a deist who believed that "the unseen universe of Spirit" had interceded to create life as well as consciousness in animals and (separately) in humans.

An early example of this kind of approach came from computing pioneer Charles Babbage who published his unofficial Ninth Bridgewater Treatise in 1837, putting forward the thesis that God had the omnipotence and foresight to create as a divine legislator, making laws (or programs) which then produced species at the appropriate times, rather than continually interfering with ad hoc miracles each time a new species was required.

Pierre Teilhard de Chardin (1881–1955) is a noted geologist and paleontologist as well as a Jesuit Priest who wrote extensively on the subject of incorporating evolution into a new understanding of Christianity. Initially suppressed by the Catholic Church his theological work has had considerable influence and is widely taught in Catholic and most mainline Protestant seminaries.

Both Ronald Fisher (1890–1962) and Theodosius Dobzhansky (1900–1975), were Christians and architects of the modern evolutionary synthesis. Dobzhansky, a Russian Orthodox, wrote a famous 1973 essay entitled Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution espousing evolutionary creationism:

"I am a creationist and an evolutionist. Evolution is God's, or Nature's, method of creation. Creation is not an event that happened in 4004 BC; it is a process that began some 10 billion years ago and is still under way....Does the evolutionary doctrine clash with religious faith? It does not. It is a blunder to mistake the Holy Scriptures for elementary textbooks of astronomy, geology, biology, and anthropology. Only if symbols are construed to mean what they are not intended to mean can there arise imaginary, insoluble conflicts....the blunder leads to blasphemy: the Creator is accused of systematic deceitfulness."

More recently, Kenneth R. Miller professor of biology at Brown University, has written Finding Darwin's God (Cliff Street Books, 1999) in which he states his belief in God and argues that "evolution is the key to understanding God." Dr. Miller has also called himself "an orthodox Catholic and an orthodox Darwinist" (the 2001 PBS special "Evolution"). Other Christian evolutionary creationists include Derek Burke, Professor of Biological Sciences at the University of Warwick; R. J. Berry, Professor of Genetics at University College London; evangelical Christian and geologist Keith B. Miller (no relation to Kenneth) of Kansas State University, who compiled an anthology Perspectives on an Evolving Creation (Eerdmans, 2003); biologist Denis Lamoureux of St. Joseph's College, University of Alberta, Canada who has co-authored with evolution critic Phillip E. Johnson Darwinism Defeated? The Johnson-Lamoureux Debate on Biological Origins (Regent College, 1999); biologist Darrel Falk of Point Loma Nazarene University, author of Coming to Peace with Science; theologian-philosopher John Haught of Georgetown University; Keith Ward, author of God, Chance, and Necessity; Rev. John Polkinghorne of Cambridge University; Fr. George Coyne of the Vatican Observatory; paleobiologist Prof. Simon Conway Morris of Cambridge University, well known for his groundbreaking work on the Burgess Shale fossils and the Cambrian explosion, and author of Life's Solution: Inevitable Humans in a Lonely Universe; and many other scientists and theologians, past and present.

Criticisms of theistic evolution

The major atheistic criticism of evolutionary creationism is that of all forms of creationism: the belief in a supernatural creator, which violates both the naturalism and falsifiability requirements of scientific philosophy (see also rationalism). Another criticism of some forms of evolutionary creationism (especially those of deists) are that they are simply a belief in a God of the gaps, where anything that cannot currently be explained by science is attributed to God. For example, the physicist Dr. Paul Davies has stated: "I flatly reject the argument that the origin of life was some sort of miracle. To be sure, we don't yet know how it happened, but that doesn't mean a cosmic magician is needed to prod atoms around." Theists reject evolution primarily on the basis of their scriptures. Most monotheistic scriptures contain a creation story describing an event in which animals and humans are instantly created by a supernatural being, typically each in a different way, which contradicts the process of natural selection if taken literally.

Young Earth creationists criticize theistic evolution on theological grounds (see External links).

See also

• Atheism
• Biblical cosmology
• Cosmogony
• Cosmology
• Cosmological argument
• Creator god
• Deism
• Existence
• Natural theology
• Arthur Peacocke
• Theism
• Timeline of the Big Bang
• Timeline of the Universe
• Ultimate fate of the universe

References

• Miller, Kenneth R.; (1999) Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution ISBN 0060930497
• Miller, Keith B.; (2003) Perspectives on an Evolving Creation ISBN 0802805124
• Falk, Darrel; (2004) Coming to Peace with Science: Bridging the Worlds Between Faith and Biology ISBN 0830827420

External links

• What is Creationism? by Mark Isaak, presents various forms of creationism
• What is Evolution? by Laurence Moran, presents a standard definition for evolution
• Answers In Creation old earth creationism, but open to theistic evolution
• Evolution & Creation: A Theosophic Synthesis Surveys critical problems in Darwinist explanations and common theistic views; explores ancient and modern "excluded middle" alternatives

Proponents of theistic evolution

• Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution by Theodosius Dobzhansky (see also: Misplaced Pages's article)
• Kenneth R Miller's homepage
• Finding Darwin's God An article based on the last chapter of Ken Miller's book.
• God and Evolution — part of the talk.origins Archive
• Message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences: On Evolution subtitled "Truth Cannot Contradict Truth", by Pope John Paul II, 22 October 1996.
• On Cosmology and Fundamental Physics, by Pope John Paul II, 3 October 1981.
• Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God Statement on creation and evolution from the International Theological Commission headed by Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI), 23 July 2004.
• Perspectives on Theistic Evolution An examination of both the theological and scientific aspects of theistic evolution.
• see also The "Clergy Letter" Project signed by thousands of clergy supporting evolution and faith
• DMD Publishing Co. home page Essays arguing that even a literal treatment of Genesis requires theistic evolution.

Opponents of theistic evolution

• About Atheism on the topic
• Answers in Genesis
  • Why is evolution so dangerous for Christians to believe?
  • Theistic evolution: what difference does it make? by Dean Davis
• Institute for Creation Research
  • The Compromise Road by Henry Morris
• Saving the Appearances: A study in Idolatry by Owen Barfield
• What's wrong with theistic evolution? by Answers Depot

• Creationism
• Evolution