The Evolution Of Theory

Posted by Jonathan Brink
October 6, 2009

This is an interesting video for all the wrong reasons.  It’s a response of a group of people (Campus Crusade for Christ, Alliance Defense Fund, and Answers In Genesis) attempting to defend against the celebration the 150th anniversary of Charles Darwin’s Origin of Species.

At 3:00 into the video, Kirk says:

“We’re working…to get (50,000) copies of Darwin’s Origin of Species into the hands of this generation.  And all we want to do is present the opposing and CORRECT view, rather than being censored, which is exactly the case at present.”

And then he offers what is essentially a ruse:

“These students aren’t stupid.  They should be given both sides of the argument and allowed to make up their own minds, right?  We think that’s healthy.”

Okay I have to say it.  That’s bullshit. By his own admission he predetermined the outcome for the students by claiming its the correct version.  He’s defined the acceptable answer for them before the dialog begins.  That’s no longer a dialog.

And if the corresponding bodies involved actually believed student could make up their own minds, they’d be leading the way in terms of presenting both theories in their own houses by actually allowing people to make up their own minds.  But they don’t.  They do exactly the same thing they are criticizing their adversaries for. Only when the playing field is controlled by the adversary do they make such demands.  If they wanted to be honest, they would have been leading the way in churches.  They would have been creating dialogs to learn and understand rather that defend and destroy.

I think one of the interesting quandaries for me is why the theory of evolution is so hard for people to understand as a generative concept in creation.  But the reality is that it doesn’t fit within a framework of a God who controls everything.  Evolution doesn’t allow for predetermination.  It suggest that God allows us to be involved in the process.  Evolution doesn’t negate the story of Genesis, or creationism.  It invites us to participate with God in what He is doing.

PS: Matt Kelley found the original video, so you can blame him. ;-P I love what he says in his post.

“The issue for these people isn’t about faith in God or even the authority of the Bible, really. It’s about the authority of their interpretation of the Bible. In other words, the authority of them. And that’s scary.”

There is also a very subversive counter argument to the above video that made me laugh…again for all the wrong reasons.  Oh well.

Share and Enjoy:
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • Technorati
  • Reddit
  • Google Bookmarks
Science, video

If you enjoyed this post, please consider to leave a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.

  • Eric
    "I think one of the interesting quandaries for me is why the theory of evolution is so hard for people to understand as a generative concept in creation. But the reality is that it doesn’t fit within a framework of a God who controls everything. Evolution doesn’t allow for predetermination. It suggest that God allows us to be involved in the process. Evolution doesn’t negate the story of Genesis, or creationism. It invites us to participate with God in what He is doing."

    This is untrue. Evolution is perfectly compatible with predetermination. That's why engineers can use evolutionary algorithms to improve their designs - because they can specify a goal and then use evolutionary techniques to work towards that goal. Most of the critics of evolution don't have a problem with evolution, as such, anyways. Even the most ardent 6 day/24 hour creationists still accept some form of evolution.

    I'm also curious as to what you mean when you say evolution allows us to be involved in the process. Can you explain that a little more?
  • Eric, I don't know if we're on the same page on this one, or if I have simply used the wrong word to describe what I meant, which I have been known to do from time to time.

    By predetermined, I meant that God has a specific order to the universe that is predetermined. Everything is up to God and we're simply bystanders in the process. The idea is a central theme in Calvinism.

    So when we introduce evolution, it suggests that God has created something that is not predetermined. It's constantly changing and shifting. He's involved us in the process of co-creating with him, which is what I meant by your second question.

    I'm not saying predeterminism is not possible.
  • Eric
    Well, I'm a calvinist and I have no problem with evolution. (As a calvinist, I would deny that humans are simply bystanders in the universe, though.) There is no inherent incompatibility between the evolution and predetermination, as far as I can tell. (And trust me, I've thought a lot about it.)

    Most calvinists I know also would have no problem with the idea that humans are involved in developing and unfolding God's creation (most would probably shy away from the term "co-creator" though). But I guess I don't see what that has to do with evolution. Perhaps you aren't using the term strictly in a biological sense?
  • Fear not, brother. Someone once said to me, "If your laughing for the right reasons, your not really getting the joke."

    Grace and Peace,
    Raffi
  • John L
    Good post. Evangelical "tools" like this make a mockery of the very ideas they are trying to further.

    Here's the reality: roughly 2/3 of all academic scientists maintain a religious faith, yet less than 5% of those scientists-of-faith support "creationism." Genome research over the last 10-15 years has effectively proven the accuracy of long-term evolutionary theory. ( more: http://tiny.cc/tgZd0 )

    What's far more exciting, I think, is research into the origin of life itself. Many scientists are not convinced that RNA and proteins "self-organized" on the planet. Many (around 1/3 IIRC) would currently support an "off-planet" origin.
  • I think one of the tensions we still have John is the reality that there is this story in Scripture that tells of a creation account. I forces us to reconcile our theories and realities with history and what has been handed down. To ignore either Scirpture or science is to blind ourselves to what it there, which could inform us in deep ways. How we ultimately reconcile that with the concept of evolution as a process that exists in nature is, I think, still to be determined.

    I'm old school in that regard. I think God did create the world according to the Genesis story. But how He did it is up to him and it really doesn't change my understanding of God.
  • John L
    JB, I do think science can be enriched by the poetic depths of religion. But when religion has historically tried to do science, it has failed miserably (think Galileo, etc.).
  • TheGoulieKid
    RC Sproul is quoted "If there is a random molecule in the universe, then God is not sovereign." He uses that statement as an argument against evolution, which relies on random chance as one of its foundations.

    I prefer to live in the tension of the dialogue between Neo and the Architect: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1y9vl2J9VE&feat...
  • Eric
    I would encourage people here to read this: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/chance/chance-t...

    The word chance - as used by scientists - doesn't refer to causation. It refers to our knowledge of causation.
  • And there in lies the problem Eric. I think you have a good understanding of both faith and science. But most people that I've met (at least who are violent passionate about this subject) don't. Their understanding is limited and thus produces the conflict between the two. That is the problem that I am speaking to. It's not what is. It's what people think it is.

    I value people like you who can do the work and step beyond the tension and find a way to reconcile it. But most people who I have met refuse or don't want to do that.
  • Eric
    I must have misunderstood you. When you said, "Evolution doesn't allow for predestination." I took that to be your view, not the view of people you've met. Sorry about that.
  • I was heavily involved with Campus Crusade for Christ whilst I was at uni (or rather the Australian arm, known as Student Life).

    Looking back, there are quite a few things I consider "cringe worthy". Yet they are still the most missional organisation I have ever worked with. So I'll forgive them for that.

    From experience, they are actually pretty good about 'dialogging' with people. I think the bigger issue here is the marriage between creationism and evangelism. Even worse, the marriage between creationism and intelligent design. Most scientists promoting intelligent design don't believe in 6-day creationism, or a young earth.
  • Chadg30
    Just because I don't understand something doesn't mean it didn't happy. Whether creationism or evolution or both is for Him to know and us to find out! And its always been there for us to discover. IMHO
  • Kyle L.
    Yes, as a Christian and Engineer, I am wrestling with Genesis + science quite a bit. Especially young earth assumptions. But as far as I can tell evolution does not seem to be out of Biblical truth. However God did make us in His image, therefore, perhaps this image is dynamic (assuming we have evolved, if even in a small scale, which given the volume of humanoid remains, seems likely)?

    Or perhaps "image" is more abstract than than appearance, etc.

    Anyway, side note, but did you really need to throw in the cuss? I mean, granted we all can slip prob too much (e.g. smash your toe into something, etc), but text is rather malleable form of expression. I don't think changing this word would detract from your meaning any.

    Remember: Ephesians 4:29. I think this applies to written words too. My wife reminds me of this all too much (language LOL).
  • Kyle I respect your concern for language but this is my blog. Bullshit is a term that is culturally acceptable as a term to describe when someone is lying. It is not directed at someone's dignity.
  • Kyle L.
    Yeah, I am fairly confident you had no nefarious intentions (and perhaps my quote is not completely relevant in this context). Not a huge deal, I just was thinking a site that makes so many references to God/Jesus and scripture... well.... hmmm.

    I mean, 'culturally' abortion and fornication are also the norm (depending on your local, I am in the USA). Again, many bigger issues in life, really... just saying. It was honestly distracting for me. I really don't care, personally, I deal with this type of language all the time: office, restaurant, HOA meetings, what-have-you.

    I was just surprised at the God centered theme with this content (well at least from what appears to be a Christian minister). If I heard this on a Christian program or within a church I would think twice about watching/attending, unless it was in a unintended instance. Maybe this is a cultural divide between our regions. It is just a word, after all. I suppose meanings are ever changing.

    A Christian author once said: "You may be the only Bible some people will ever read." We would direct a child to read about Christ, but would we use this language in front of them? Here, In this culture, it would be something we would likely avoid (even from many non-Christians). My guess is it would result in detention LOL, (but these days so does talking about Jesus... so it seems, ... eh, whatever).
blog comments powered by Disqus