Part of a series on |
Creationism |
|
History of creationism |
Types of creationism |
Young Earth creationism |
Other religious views |
Hindu · Islamic · Jewish |
Creation theology |
Creation in Genesis |
Creation science |
Baraminology |
Controversy |
Politics of creationism |
Creationism Portal · |
Theistic evolution is the general opinion that classical religious teachings about God and creation are compatible with some or all of the modern scientific understanding about biological evolution. Theistic evolution is not a theory in the scientific sense, but a particular view about how the science of evolution relates to some religious interpretations. In this way, theistic evolution supporters can be seen as one of the groups who deny the conflict thesis regarding the relationship between religion and science; that is, they hold that religious teachings about creation and scientific theories of evolution need not be contradictory. In describing early proponents of this viewpoint, it is sometimes described as Christian Darwinism.[1] A very similar view, that is hardly distinguishable from a scientific viewpoint, is Evolutionary Creationism.[2]
The term was used by National Center for Science Education executive director Eugenie Scott to refer to the part of the overall spectrum of beliefs about creation and evolution holding the theological view that God creates through evolution. It covers a wide range of beliefs about the extent of any intervention by God, with some approaching deism in rejecting continued intervention. Others see intervention at critical intervals in history in a way consistent with scientific explanations of speciation, but with similarities to the ideas of Progressive Creationism that God created "kinds" of animals sequentially.[3]
This view is accepted (or at least not rejected) by major Christian churches, including Roman Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox Church and some mainline Protestant denominations; some Jewish denominations; and other religious groups that lack a literalist stance concerning holy scriptures. Various biblical literalists have accepted or noted openness to this stance, including theologian B.B. Warfield and evangelist Billy Graham.
With this approach toward evolution, scriptural creation stories are typically interpreted as being allegorical in nature. Both Jews and Christians have considered the idea of the creation history as an allegory (instead of a historical description) long before the development of Darwin's theory. Two notable examples are the writings of Philo of Alexandria (1st century) and St. Augustine (4th century).[4][5]
Theistic evolutionists argue that it is inappropriate to use Genesis as a scientific text, since it was written in a pre-scientific age and originally intended for religious instruction; as such, seemingly chronological aspects of the creation accounts should be thought of in terms of a literary framework. Theistic evolutionists may believe that creation is not literally a week long process but a process beginning in the time of Genesis and continuing through all of time, including today. This view affirms that God created the world and was the primary causation of our being, while scientific changes such as evolution are part of "creatia continua" or continuing creation which is still occurring in the never ending process of creation. Changes such as these caused by science are part of a secondary causation that changes us within the framework of the world God has created with primary causation. This is one possible way of interpreting biblical scriptures, such as Genesis, that seem to be in opposition to scientific theories, such as evolution.[6]
The term evolutionary creationism refers to an understanding of God that transcends yet includes normal time and space, with nature having no existence independent of God. It allows interpretations consistent with both literal and poetic readings of Genesis and objective science.
Contents |
“ | ....creationism has come to mean some fundamentalistic, literal, scientific interpretation of Genesis. Judaic-Christian faith is radically creationist, but in a totally different sense. It is rooted in a belief that everything depends upon God, or better, all is a gift from God. | ” |
—Fr George Coyne, Director, Vatican Observatory, 1978-2006 |
Theistic evolution holds that the theist's 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. St. Anselm described theology as "Faith seeking understanding"[7] and theistic evolutionists believe that this search for understanding extends to scientific understanding. In light of this view, authors writing on the subject, such as Ted Peters and Martinez Hewlett, say that "The best science and our best thinking about God belong together."[6] Peters and Hewlett see science as a means of evaluating, understanding, and using to our benefit the intricacies of the world that God has created for us.
This synthesis of science with the teleology underlying faith and religious teachings 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" over "evolutionary creationism" to describe this belief.
Many 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.
Evolution contradicts a literalistic interpretation of Genesis; however, according to Roman Catholicism and most contemporary Protestant Churches, biblical literalism in the creation account is not mandatory. Christians have considered allegorical interpretations of Genesis since long before the development of Darwin's theory of evolution, or Hutton's principle of uniformitarianism. A notable example is St. Augustine (4th century), who, on theological grounds, argued that everything in the universe was created by God in the same instant, and not in six days as a plain reading of Genesis would require.[5] Modern theologians such as Meredith G. Kline and Henri Blocher have advocated what has become known as the literary framework interpretation of the days of Genesis.
Many Christian denominations support or accept theistic evolution. For example, on 12 February 2006, the 197th anniversary of Charles Darwin's birth was commemorated by "Evolution Sunday" where the message that followers of Christ do not have to choose between biblical stories of creation and evolution was taught in classes and sermons at many Methodist, Lutheran, Episcopalian, Presbyterian, Unitarian, Congregationalist, United Church of Christ, Baptist and community churches.[8]
Additionally, the National Council of Churches USA has issued a teaching resource to "assist people of faith who experience no conflict between science and their faith and who embrace science as one way of appreciating the beauty and complexity of God's creation." This resource cites the Episcopal Church, according to whom the stories of creation in Genesis "should not be understood as historical and scientific accounts of origins but as proclamations of basic theological truths about creation."[9]
The positions of particular denominations are discussed below.
Although Anglicans (including the Episcopal Church in the United States of America, the Church of England and others) believe that the Bible "contains all things necessary to salvation," nonetheless "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." Their position is clearly set out in the Catechism of Creation Part II: Creation and Science.[10] In an interview, the Archbishop of Canterbury Dr Rowan Williams expressed his thought that "creationism is, in a sense, a kind of category mistake, as if the Bible were a theory like other theories. Whatever the biblical account of creation is, it's not a theory alongside theories... My worry is creationism can end up reducing the doctrine of creation rather than enhancing it."[11] His view is that creationism should not be taught in schools.
Katharine Jefferts Schori, Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church in the United States, holds a Ph. D. in oceanography, having written her dissertation on the evolution of a variety of squid.[12]
The Church of the Nazarene, an evangelical Christian denomination, sees "knowledge acquired by science and human inquiry equal to that acquired by divine revelation," and, while the church "'believes in the Biblical account of creation' and holds that God is the sole creator, it allows latitude 'regarding the "how" of creation.'"[13]
While Richard G. Colling, author of Random Designer[14] and professor at Olivet Nazarene University, received criticism from elements within the denomination in 2007 for his book (published in 2004),[15] Darrel R. Falk of Point Loma Nazarene published a similar book in 2004,[16] and Karl Giberson of Eastern Nazarene, the first Nazarene scholar to publish with Oxford University Press, has published four books since 1993 on the tensions between science and religion,[17] including his most recently published Saving Darwin.[18]
The Nazarene Manual, a document crafted to provide Biblical guidance and denominational expression for Church members, states: "The Church of the Nazarene believes in the biblical account of creation (“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth . . .”—Genesis 1:1). We oppose any godless interpretation of the origin of the universe and of humankind. However, the church accepts as valid all scientifically verifiable discoveries in geology and other natural phenomena, for we firmly believe that God is the Creator. (Articles I.1., V. 5.1, VII.) (2005)[19]
The Eastern Orthodox Church views science as a true describer of the physical world. A scientific understanding of the world is given to humans by God as a gift so we can progress, and use science to good purpose. The Eastern Orthodox Church accepts evolution, because it is consistent with the teaching of "a general plan" of God, developed through God's prescience. In this manner, it can be said that The Eastern Orthodox Church teaches that it was God's plan for humans to exist and evolution was God's process for the development of humanity. In the teachings of The Eastern Orthodox Church the intervention or direction of a supernatural entity was not required in the development of life, due to God's prescience. Although The Eastern Orthodox Church believes in prescience, its position strongly opposes the concepts of fate and destiny, because The Eastern Orthodox Church views free will as one of God's greatest gifts to humanity.
The position of the Roman Catholic Church on the theory of evolution has changed over the last two centuries from a large period of no official mention, to a statement of neutrality in the 1950s, to limited guarded acceptance in recent years, rejecting the materialistic and reductionist philosophies behind it, and insisting that the human soul was immediately infused by God, and the reality of a single ancestor (commonly called monogenism) for the human race. The Church does not argue with scientists on matters such as the age of the earth and the authenticity of the fossil record, seeing such matters as outside its area of expertise. Papal pronouncements, along with commentaries by cardinals, indicate that the Church is aware of the general findings of scientists on the gradual appearance of life. The Church's stance is that the temporal appearance of life has been guided in some way by God, but the Church has thus far declined to define in what way that may be.
The official Church's position remains a focus of controversy and is fairly non-specific, stating only that faith and the origin of man's material body "from pre-existing living matter" are not in conflict, and that the existence of God is required to explain the spiritual component of man's origin.
Catholic schools do not teach theistic evolution as part of their science curriculum. They teach the facts of evolution and the scientific theory of its mechanisms. This is essentially the same biological curriculum taught in public schools and secular universities.
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. Other deists take the stronger position that God ceased to exist after setting in motion the laws of the universe.
One recently-converted deist is philosopher and professor Antony Flew, who became a deist in December 2004. Professor Flew, a former atheist, 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 also stated that the investigation of DNA "has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce [life], that intelligence must have been involved"[20], though he subsequently retracted this statement in an interview with Joan Bakewell for BBC Radio 4 in March 2005[21].
Evolutionary creationism states that the Creator God uses evolution to bring about his plan. Eugenie Scott and Niles Eldredge state in Evolution Vs. Creationism that it is in fact a type of evolution, as well as that it is "hardly distinguishable from Theistic Evolution".[2]
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[22] 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 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."
The Ahmadiyya Movement are perhaps the only denomination in Islam that universally accept Evolution and actively promote it[23]. Ahmadi's reject both the Creationism and Intelligent Design models, and also disagree with certain aspects of Islamic creationism. In support of the concepts of macroevolution, Ahmadis believe that mankind had gradually evolved from different species (i.e apes) and regard Adam as the first Prophet of God as opposed to being the first man on Earth[24]. Rather than adopting the Darwinist theory however, Ahmadis promote the idea of "guided evolution", and view that each stage of the evolutionary process as having been selectively and contiguously organized to an intricate level by one monotheistic creator[25], the role played much more like a strategic game of Chess than a game of dice.
In general, three of the four major denominations of Judaism (Reconstructionist, Reform, and Conservative) accept theistic evolution. Within Orthodoxy, there is much debate about the issue. Most Modern Orthodox groups accept theistic evolution and most Ultra-Orthodox groups do not. This disagreement was most vociferous in the Natan Slifkin controversy which arose when a number of prominent Ultra-Orthodox Rabbis banned books written by Rabbi Natan Slifkin which explored the idea of theistic evolution within Jewish tradition. These Rabbis forming part of Jewish opposition to evolution considered that his books were heresy as they indicated that the Talmud is not necessarily correct about scientific matters such as the age of the Earth.
The general approach of advocates of theistic evolution within Judaism comes in two tacts. Either the creation account in the Torah is not to be taken as a literal text, but rather as a symbolic work, or, alternatively, that the 'days' do not refer to 24-hour periods (justified by how the first day in the biblical account actually precedes the creation of the sun and earth by which 24 hour days are reckoned). In the latter view, Jewish scholars point out how the order of creation in Genesis corresponds to the actual development of life on Earth--the sun, then earth, then oceans, then oceanic plant life, fish preceding land-based life, with mammals and finally humans last--and in no way specifies the method of creation in a manner prohibitive of evolution.
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) was 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 Roman 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:
The role of Scripture in relation to science is captured by an oft-quoted phrase: "The Bible tell us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go." The phrase is especially heard in discussions of the relation between cosmology and theology. In the realm of biology and theology, the saying coined by Thomas Jay Oord is perhaps more appropriate: "The Bible tells us how to find abundant life, not the details of how life became abundant."
Contemporary biologists and geologists who are Christians and theistic evolutionists include:
Philosophers, theologians, and physical scientists who have supported the evolutionary creationist model include:
The major criticism of theistic evolution by non-theistic evolutionists focuses on its essential belief in a supernatural creator. By the application of Occam's razor, sufficient explanation of the phenomena of evolution is provided for non-theistic evolutionists by the principle of natural selection, and the intervention or direction of a supernatural entity is not required. As Richard Dawkins says, "the illusion of design in the living world is explained with far greater economy … by Darwinian natural selection".[26] Robert Todd Carroll illustrates the point when he contends that "the universe would appear the same to us whether it was designed by God or not".[27]
Another criticism of some forms of evolutionary creationism (especially those of deists) is 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."[28]
Young Earth creationists criticise theistic evolution on theological grounds, finding it hard to reconcile the nature of a loving God with the process of evolution, in particular, the existence of death and suffering before the Fall of Man. They consider that it undermines central biblical teachings by regarding the creation account as a myth, a parable, or an allegory, instead of believing that it is a historical report. They also fear that a capitulation to what they call "atheistic" naturalism will confine God to the gaps in scientific explanations, undermining biblical doctrines, such as God's incarnation through Christ.[29]
Some adherents of theistic evolution hold that the deity both designed the universe and has a continuing part in its development, and feel that a term they favour has been hijacked by the proponents of the viewpoint called "Intelligent design". One notable proponent of theistic evolution, Francis Collins is a critic of Intelligent design.