An Evangelical Dialogue on

Evolution

A collection of articles promoting a positive relationship between

Evangelical Christianity and evolutionary science

Author:
Steve Martin

Document Version: 1.0

Last Updated: April 11, 2009

This document is a compilation of weblog posts; the individual articles remain the property of the author. You are
free to share, copy, or distribute this document in full within the limitations of the Creative Commons Attribution-
Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License and the Creative Commons Attribution-
Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.5 Canada License. To view copies of these licenses, visit
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/us/ and http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/ca/.

1
 Table of Contents

A) INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................................3

B) THE DIALOGUE BETWEEN EVANGELICALISM AND EVOLUTIONARY SCIENCE ..................4

I. Welcome to the Dialogue ....................................................................................................................................4
II. Evangelicalism and Evolution: Why the Discussion Matters .............................................................................5
III. Dialogue, Debate, Silence, or Confrontation: How should we approach the topic of evolution? ......................7
C) EVOLUTION AND EVANGELICALISM: DEFINITIONS AND HISTORICAL CONTEXT .............9
I. What Does Evolution Mean? A Framework for Evangelical Christians.............................................................9
II. Evangelicalism: Not simply "Toned down Fundamentalism" ..........................................................................11
III. What is an Evangelical? Am I one? Why do I choose to wear the Label? .......................................................13
IV. Two Myths about the Relationship between Evangelical Christianity and Science.........................................14
D) RECONCILING SCRIPTURAL AUTHORITY AND EVOLUTIONARY SCIENCE .........................17
I. Scripture or Science: Do we have to Choose?...................................................................................................17
II. Literal or Liberal: Our only choices for interpreting the Bible? .......................................................................19
III. Genesis 1 –11: Background, Context, and Theology .......................................................................................21
IV. An Incarnational Approach to Scripture...........................................................................................................23
E) EVOLUTION: THEOLOGICAL AND MORAL IMPLICATIONS .......................................................26
I. Theological Implications of an Evolving Creation: Five common Faithstoppers .............................................26
II. Made in God’s Image or Evolved from Apes? .................................................................................................28
III. Reconciling the Fall and Evolution ..................................................................................................................29
IV. Evolution: Necessary for the Continuation of Life...........................................................................................31
V. Does Evolution lead to Moral Relativism? Making the Bogeyman even Scarier.............................................32
VI. Et Tu Tony? A Critique of Campolo’s attack on "Darwinism"........................................................................34
F) EVOLUTION: PERSONAL CHOICES AND IMPLICATIONS FOR EVANGELICALS ..................37
I. Factors involved in the shift to Evolutionary Creationism: My Story and Yours .............................................37
II. When the Acceptance of Biological Evolution has Personal or Professional Repercussions ...........................38
III. Would your Church allow you to Publicly Support Evolution? .......................................................................39
G) THE STATE OF THE DIALOGUE AND A CALL TO ACTION ..........................................................42
I. Ten Books and what they mean for Evolutionary Creationism.........................................................................42
II. Reclaiming and Proclaiming Creation ..............................................................................................................43
III. Promoting a Positive Relationship Between Faith and Science in Evangelical Churches................................44

2
A) Introduction

This Ebook is a collection of articles from An Evangelical Dialogue on Evolution, the weblog I launched in May
2007. Growing up in a relatively secluded Evangelical culture, I had always assumed that evolution was an atheist
fairy tale incompatible with (and possibly lethal to) the Christian faith. However, over several years I gradually
came to accept the scientific validity of evolution, and more importantly, its compatibility with an Evangelical
expression of the Christian faith. This journey was both spiritually and intellectually difficult, a journey made more
arduous because of a dearth of resources and lack of support within the Evangelical community. The blog was
launched to 1) provide a forum to share my thoughts and conclusions with other Evangelicals, and 2) to invite
comments, criticism, and corrections from, as well as conversation with, other Evangelicals examining the science /
faith interface.

Why this Ebook?

By gathering the articles together, I’m hoping that this Ebook can be helpful in several ways:
1. As a “conversation starter” for my fellow Evangelical Evolutionary Creationists who wish to discuss
their viewpoints with other Evangelicals.
2. As a resource for Evangelicals wondering how they can integrate the findings of modern science with
their faith
3. For those convinced that evolution is antithetical to faith, the Ebook will provide details on why I
believe this conclusion is completely mistaken. I have two primary audiences in mind:
a. Evangelicals struggling with (or considering abandoning) their faith because of the perceived
conflict between that faith and the findings of modern science.
b. Those considering making a commitment to the Christ, but who mistakenly believe they must
ignore well supported scientific evidence to do so.
4. As a summary resource for readers who enjoyed the blog, but discovered it well after it was launched,
and don’t have the time to wade through all of the old material.

About the Articles included in the Ebook

The 23 articles included in the E-book are arranged thematically rather than chronologically; this provides, I
believe, a more-or-less cohesive account of my viewpoint as documented on the blog – “more-or-less” since, as
astute readers will note, some of my own ideas have evolved over the last couple of years. Note also that I use the
adjective “cohesive”, and not “complete”, when describing my viewpoint; I too am still learning and there are
several areas of this conversation that puzzle me as well. Since each article was written to stand on its own, it is not
necessary (nor even advisable in many cases) to read this Ebook in sequential order or in a single sitting. As with
most collections, there are probably as many right ways to digest the material as there are readers.

It is important to note that I made two assumptions in writing almost all of these articles. My first assumption was
that the scientific evidence for biological evolution is overwhelming; rarely do I discuss the evidence. If the
scientific evidence for biological evolution is of primary concern, you might want to start with one of these ten
books by other Evangelicals who accept the evidence for biological evolution. Second, I assume that the claims of
orthodox Christianity are credible, and that my readers agree with this claim. I was pleasantly surprised to discover
that many who did not share this assumption found the blog of interest, but Christian apologetics was not really in
scope. So if Christian apologetics (or debunking the claims of Christianity) is of primary concern, again, you may
want to start somewhere else.

A Note of Thanks
I want to thank the many thoughtful readers who provided comments and feedback to these and other articles on the
blog. This feedback helped me enormously. Secondly, I want to thank a host of other science-faith bloggers (too
many to name) with whom I interacted over the last couple of years. Some of the best conversations occurred on
their sites and this was very valuable for me as I worked through the issues for myself.

3
B) The Dialogue between Evangelicalism and Evolutionary Science
I strongly believe that a positive dialogue between evangelicalism and evolutionary science is not only
possible, but is also of vital importance to our faith and our mission. Evangelicalism’s misguided war on
evolution has often damaged the faith of thoughtful Christians, and has created a stumbling block for
those who might otherwise consider the good news of salvation through Jesus Christ. The discussion is
difficult; how this dialogue is conducted is just as important as the content. To be successful we need
wisdom, patience, and guidance from the Holy Spirit. The following three articles provide my
perspective on this dialogue. The first introduces the dialogue and identifies why it is of some
importance to me personally. The second post provides four reasons why this discussion is important to
Evangelicalism while the third post offers some thoughts on how the dialogue should be conducted.

from talking or thinking about evolution. Theistic

I. Welcome to the Dialogue
Published: May 7, 2007
Dialogue rarely describes the relationship between
evangelicals and evolutionary science. Perhaps
debate, condemnation, or mocking, but rarely
dialogue. And the lack of dialogue and propensity to
condemn and mock goes both ways. Evangelicals
condemn evolutionary science as atheistic;
evolutionists mock evangelicals as being little better
than medieval religious nutcases. Prominent
evangelicals will debate evolution, but as in most
debates, there is little real listening. It’s all about
scoring points and winning the argument.
Evolution and Faith: Is Dialogue Possible?
So it can be a bewildering experience for thoughtful
evangelicals trying to determine the credibility of the
theory of evolution. On the one hand, the scientific
community, almost unanimously, considers it to be
an undeniable fact. The evidence is deemed as
compelling as other obvious scientific facts like
gravity and heliocentricism. On the other hand,
Young Earth Creationist (YEC) organizations
(largely Evangelical in outlook) boldly claim that
there is absolutely no evidence to support evolution,
or that the evidence is either fabricated or grossly
misinterpreted. Even more disconcerting is the fact
that the shrillest voices on both sides of the debate
agree that evolution has huge religious implications.
“Evolution is true, and its clear implication is that
there is no God”, says one atheistic evolutionist.
“The acceptance of evolution means denying the
Word of God” counters YEC.
A Personal Quest
Since the choice is framed as either "Evolution or
God", its no wonder that most Evangelicals shy away
Evolutionism (TE) seems more like an oxymoron
rather than a legitimate position on origins. This was
my own perspective growing up in a conservative
Evangelical culture. And although I became less
dogmatic about my opposition to evolution as I
entered adulthood, it was not something I thought
much about. That is, until a few years ago when it
became obvious that my 9-year old son was starting
to have questions about science and faith, questions I
myself had faced when I was younger but was maybe
too afraid to discuss, or to investigate too deeply.
Thus started a quest to investigate "the truth" of
evolution and its implication for my faith. Sometimes
courage to face our fears comes not because we are
courageous, but because the alternative is deemed
even worse.
Now, several years into this quest, one thing is
eminently clear: I was immensely naïve to think that I
could answer all my questions one way or another
regarding the interaction of evolution and the
Christian Faith – at least in this lifetime. Indeed, as
soon as one question is answered, two more seem to
pop out of the woodwork. As well, this type of
investigation requires specialization in biology,
geology, genetics, biochemistry, paleontology,
anthropology, theology, history, history of science,
philosophy, philosophy of science, and biblical
studies to name but a few of the disciplines. Even
brilliant academics with doctorates in 2 or 3 of the
disciplines need to “trust the experts” in fields in
which they are unfamiliar. I am, at the very best, a
rank amateur in only of few of these disciplines; in
most I am virtually illiterate. It’s clear that I will
never be able to completely close the book on this
quest.
However, I have come to some broad conclusions.
The first is that biological evolution, including

4
common descent of humans from pre-existing
animals, is the framework that best matches current
scientific evidence for describing how life developed
on earth. Second, and more importantly, I believe
that the idea of God creating through evolution is
compatible with the Christian faith, an Evangelical
expression of this faith, a faith that does not
compromise the divine inspiration and authority of
the scriptures, and is in fact theologically more
satisfying than creation without evolution.
The Beginning of Dialogue
For many Evangelicals these are heady, if not
heretical, conclusions. I disagree. Neither do I
believe my Evangelical card should be confiscated
because of them. (Although frankly, at times, I feel
like voluntarily turning it in. That’s a different story).
I am certainly not alone. There is a growing chorus of
evangelicals who accept the science of evolution, and
feel that this in no way compromises their biblical
faith, nor is it the first step on the slippery slope to
liberalism. Although YEC and Intelligent Design
(ID) proponents tend to drown these voices out, it is
likely that this discussion will become more
prominent in the near future; and more heated. It’s
still unclear whether mainstream evangelicalism will
ever accept the possibility that TE proponents can
even legitimately use the label Evangelical.
Dialogue: The Reason for this Blog
And that brings us to the reason for this blog – a
dialogue. The current relationship between evolution
and evangelicalism can best be characterized as
warfare. I believe that ending this warfare will be
good for science, and much more importantly, good
for the gospel. Our Christian commission is to tell the
good news of Christ’s resurrection, his present and
coming kingdom, his new creation. The evangel in
evangelicalism should remind us of this everyday.
And I strongly believe that our misguided war on
science in general and evolution in particular is
hurting the gospel; it is preventing many from
hearing and responding to the good news. And it is
causing some who have heard and believed to now
doubt whether it is good news at all. Dialogue is the
first step towards a ceasefire.
As many of you know, I have been writing an essay
on evolution and its implications for my faith. This is
now on hold. I believe that this blog is a more
appropriate communication vehicle than an essay.
There are two reasons for this. 1) Since I am still in
mid-journey, a blog allows me to share thoughts,
ideas, and conclusions even if those ideas and
conclusions are not fully formed. There is also no
requirement to connect all the ideas into a coherent
story. 2) A blog invites comments, criticism,
corrections, and conversation. Not only will this
enhance my own understanding, but also it will make
the spiritual and intellectual journey much more
satisfying.
I welcome you to join the conversation.
PS: Note on comments. You are free to provide
comments and/or questions on the posts online (see
comments link at bottom of each post), but be aware
that right now this is open to the public (ie. anyone
can read and comment on any posts). To limit this I
think I'd need all readers of the blog to signup for a
gmail account - I'd prefer not to do this. However, I
realize that some of you may be involved in Christian
organizations that would not appreciate one of its
leaders or members being involved in this type of
discussion. If this is the case, you can email your
comments to me privately and I promise to respect
your confidentiality. Alternatively, you can post
giving only your first name or even a pseudonym.
II. Evangelicalism and Evolution:
Why the Discussion Matters
Published June 13, 2007
Is it important for Evangelicals to soften their anti-
science stance and discuss the topic of evolution?
Does it really matter? In one way, it’s not really that
important at all. Understanding and agreeing to
biological evolution is no more important than
understanding and agreeing to other scientific
theories that are supported by significant evidence.
One can get along quite nicely without understanding
gravity, stellar evolution, or quantum mechanics.
(Everyone prior to Newton did). One can be a
humble follower of Christ, participate in his kingdom
work, and attract others to the Way without agreeing
with any of the these scientific theories. So why do I
even think that discussing biological evolution is
important let alone relevant? Why not just ignore this
controversial topic, and concentrate on primary
concerns like spreading the gospel, making disciples,
serving the poor, and creation care?
The Awful Consequences of the Evangelical War
on Evolution
From my perspective, it is not actually the theory of
biological evolution that is significant, but
Evangelicalism’s misguided response to it. Not
understanding how God created life is one thing;
5
insisting that God could not have achieved his
purpose through biological evolution is quite another.
Adding anti-evolution beliefs and an anti-science
attitude to the gospel is no addition at all, but a
corruption at least on par with the early Jerusalem
church’s insistence on continuing the observance of
Jewish law. I believe there are four specific dangers
to this antagonism to evolution: First, it discourages
Evangelicals from participating in science and
celebrating the wonders of God’s creation. Second, it
is instrumental in causing many to abandon faith in
Christ. Third, it promotes and “end-justifies-the-
means” attitude to science and encourages Christians
to compromise their integrity. Fourth, it prevents
many from coming to faith in Christ.
Problem #1: Anti-evolutionism discourages
Evangelicals from studying science
As I mentioned in my welcome note, I avoided
certain academic disciplines when I was in school
(particularly biology) because I dreaded what they
would do to my faith. That evolution leads to a loss
of faith is an adage repeated constantly YEC
organizations, and this repetition enhances the
intimidation factor of the evolution bogeyman. From
anecdotical evidence, it appears that the fear
generated by this claim is a key reason why many
other Evangelicals avoid academic disciplines that
deal with human origins. (For example, see this
article lamenting the fact that there are so few
Christian anthropologists). This propagates a vicious
cycle. A dearth of Christians in these scientific
disciplines make it all the more likely that non-
Christian philosophical interpretations of the
evidence will abound.
Problem #2: Anti-evolutionism causes many to
abandon faith in Christ
YEC organizations often claim that the theory of
evolution is causing youth to abandon faith in Christ.
I believe that this is an incorrect assessment and that
the responsibility lies not with the scientific theory,
but with YEC organizations like Answers in Genesis,
The Institute for Creation Research (ICR) and
Creation Ministries International (CMI) which
shackle the gospel with an outdated theory of
science. Far from “defending the bible from the very
first verse” as AIG claims, the YEC version of the
gospel causes many to reject the biblical message
because it is poisoned with YEC nonsense. The
insistence that abandoning a YEC interpretation of
Genesis is equivalent to abandoning the authority of
the bible, and ultimately the authority of God, is a
horrible travesty. Unfortunately, many Christians
have swallowed this YEC version of the gospel, and
their faith is shaken when they encounter the
evidence for real science.
The testimony of Glenn Morton is instructive. He
became a follower of Christ during his college years
through the witness of a Christian campus ministry
and was told his new faith mandated that he believe
in YEC science. To Morton Christ’s life transforming
power was authentic, and if YEC beliefs were part of
the package, it too must be authentic. As a geo-
physicist, he became active in ICR and published
many articles that attempted to reconcile the
scientific evidence with a YEC interpretation of the
bible. Over the years however, he found it increasing
difficult to ignore the evidence for a very old earth.
Eventually, he was forced to abandon the YEC
scientific view. Because his faith was so tightly
coupled with the YEC scientific view, he nearly
abandoned his faith as well.
Problem #3: “Creation Science” compromises our
integrity as Christians
The scientific evidence points overwhelmingly
towards an old earth. Even YEC scientist Kurt Wise
admits this. He states that:
"I am a young-age creationist because the Bible
indicates the universe is young. Given what we
currently think we understand about the world, the
majority of the scientific evidence favors an old earth
and universe, not a young one. I would therefore say
that anyone who claims that the earth is young from
scientific evidence alone is scientifically ignorant”.
Unfortunately, from my reading, most creationist
scientists do not have this kind of integrity and
honesty when dealing with the scientific evidence. In
an effort to bolster the faith of their followers, they
will insist that the scientific data actually points to a
young earth. When someone identifies the flaw in a
specific scientific interpretation, they tend to move
on to new claims and new evidence. Rarely, it seems
to me, will YEC promoters admit to their followers
that their former claims were invalid, even when the
claims have been irrefutably contradicted. (For a
growing list of answers to creationist claims, see:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/)
For Creation Scientists, science is not about
examining the evidence to reach a conclusion.
Rather, their science is about choosing data that can
be interpreted to meet a pre-existing conclusion. This
6
is Morton’s view as well. As he grappled with the
geological evidence, and tried to discuss this
evidence with his fellow creationists at ICR, he found
out that:
“… my fellow young earth creationists were not
willing to listen to the problems. In general they were
not interested in discussing the difficulties and they
did not want to read any material that contradicted
their cherished position”
God is the creator of all things, the creator of nature,
the creator of science. God is not afraid of the data
and we should not be either. A dishonest portrayal of
the evidence neither honours nor defends God.
Problem #4: Anti-evolutionism prevents many
from even examining the claims of Christ
Not only does marrying Creation Science with the
gospel cause some to abandon their faith, it can also
prevent spiritual seekers from even considering the
claims of Christ. For those who are scientifically
literate in particular, the patently ridiculous claims of
“creation science” are a definite obstacle to
acceptance of the gospel.
Preston Jones, a history professor at a Christian
university, had an interesting email discussion with
Greg Graffin, an atheist and member of the punk
rock band “Bad Religion”. In a Christianity Today
article, he comments:
In those months of dialogue I also saw the
devastation wrought by the passion for pseudo-
scientific theories on natural history among some
Christians. Many of my students believe that six-day
creationism is an essential Christian belief—that if
the first chapters of Genesis can't be taken literally,
then the whole Bible is a fraud. What tragic
nonsense!
Before Greg and I corresponded, I didn't care. "You
wanna believe the earth was created six thousand
years ago? Whatever." But Greg helped me see that
this kind of gaping ignorance promotes the
perception that theologically conservative Christians
are the enemies of learning.
It is this (often true) assumption that evangelicals are
“enemies of learning” that can conceal the truth of
the gospel. I like 11th century theologian Anselm’s
motto “faith seeking understanding”, meaning an
active love of God seeking a deeper knowledge of
God. We seek to understand because we have faith,
not in order to have faith. When we abandon an
attempt to understand, we diminish faith, not enhance
it. And unfortunately, our “faith seeking
understanding” turns to “faith without
understanding”. This can be easily distorted into
“faith because there is no understanding” by those
opposed to the Christian gospel and finally to “faith
because of ignorance” by militant atheists like
Richard Dawkins.
III. Dialogue, Debate, Silence, or
Confrontation: How should we
approach the topic of evolution?
Published September 10, 2007
I started my blog a few months ago with the
following statement:
Dialogue rarely describes the relationship
between evangelicals and evolutionary science.
Perhaps debate, condemnation, or mocking, but
rarely dialogue.
From my perspective, I believe the dialogue on
biological evolution within Evangelicalism is both
possible and desirable. First, it is possible because
there is no inherent conflict between the science of
evolutionary biology and an Evangelical expression
of the Christian faith. Second it is desirable, because
the other options (debate, mocking, and
condemnation) are injuring our Christian witness and
causing division within the Christian community.
Dialogue is the Ideal
Roman Miller, the Editor of Perspectives on Science
and the Christian Faith (PSCF) captures my view on
the desirability of dialogue over debate in his March
2007 editorial called “Do we Debate or Dialogue
Issues of Science and Faith?”. Miller proposes that
Christians with different viewpoints abandon the
debate mode and dialogue instead. He muses:
I wonder about the value of debate as a tool to
create understanding. In my experience,
debates have created more heat than light and
have served to further entrench combatants in
defending their position while attacking their
opponent’s position. More and more, I am
convinced that within the circles of the
Christian community, we should avoid the
“debate mode.” Rather, we should deliberately
advocate a “dialogue mode.”
7
Miller states that dialogue works to enhance mutual Evolutionists can be Saved".
understanding while debaters focus on winning the
argument. Ironically it is dialogue, not debate, that is Silence: Sometimes it is the Best Option
much more likely to “change minds”. And an attitude There are other times when silence is the best option.
of humility, a topic Miller addresses in his September In situations where origins science or the biblical
2007 Editorial (not yet online), is a prerequisite for a interpretation of the Genesis creation accounts are
successful dialogue. As a preview to this editorial, he clearly peripheral to the discussion, starting a
states in the earlier column that: dialogue on science / faith would be distracting at
best, and probably even destructive. I would hazard
Especially in these issues in which we “dimly to say that even in many situations where these issues
peer through our varied perspective glasses,” it are primary, starting a dialogue on evolution could
behooves us to admit that we do not know or still be damaging. As Gordon’s anecdote regarding
understand with entirety and to hold our missionary Anna Leonowens shows, even the truth
positions with humility and grace. can sometimes be a stumbling block.
Dialogue is not always Possible
I agree that dialogue, conducted in humility and
Participating in respectful dialogue, with an attitude
grace, should be the primary mode of engagement in
of humility and grace, is the ideal for which we
our discussions on the integration of faith and
should all strive. This is especially true for a topic as
evolutionary science. However, I do not think
contentious and complicated as the origin of life,
dialogue is the best option in all cases. To promote
biological diversity, and humanity, a topic that no
Christian unity, there are times when we must simply
one can claim they grasp completely. Unfortunately
remain silent. And there are other times, when the
in the real world the ideal is not always possible.
gospel is being damaged for instance, that we must
What if one group of Christians considers another
choose confrontation, confrontation with humility
group’s origins view not only wrong, but also
and as much grace as possible, but still confrontation.
diametrically opposed to the gospel? What if our
origins view is condemned as heretical, and our
Choosing an Approach
accusers refuse to acknowledge that we belong to the
The question of course is this: When should we
body of Christ? How can there be any mutual
dialogue, when should we remain silent, and when
understanding in this situation?
should we confront? Each individual situation will
require its own wisdom, and the guidance of the Holy
Dialogue is not always Preferable
Spirit. But are there principles that can help us make
Maybe more importantly, I think dialogue is not
these choices, principles that will minimize the times
always preferable even when it is possible. As I’ve
we confront when we should be dialoguing, or
indicated before here, and as Vance McAlister has
dialogue when we should remain silent? How do we
written in “Creationism vs. Evolutionism: The
balance church unity against the need to correct
Danger of Misplaced Dogmatism”, a dogmatic
potentially damaging ideas about science & biblical
interpretation of scripture can damage the gospel.
interpretation? How do we seek self-correction (for
When Christian youth are abandoning their faith
none of us have all the answers), when the correction
because they cannot reconcile modern science with
being offered is an abandonment of the integrity of
the brittle scriptural interpretation mandated by their
science or the scriptures or even of the gospel itself?
church community, and when seekers choose not to
How do we achieve dialogue when others are not
follow Christ because the gospel presented to them
interested in pursuing dialogue?
includes a version of science that is unsupported by
the evidence, then I think we need to respond with
I’m still struggling with these questions.
urgency and vigor. We need to communicate that
“The Gospel of a Young Earth” is no gospel at all,
and is as erroneous as stating that "Only

8
C) Evolution and Evangelicalism: Definitions and Historical Context
Definitions are important. If there is no agreement on the definitions, there is unlikely to be agreement
on the ideas based on those definitions. So, for contentious issues like faith and science, it is important
that we first come to a mutual understanding of the definitions. For the purposes of the current dialogue,
the most salient definitions are evolution and evangelicalism.

Historical context is also important. Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it and
the history of the faith / science dialogue is littered with casualties..

The following four articles provide definitions for evolution and evangelicalism that lay a foundation for
the dialogue. These articles also provide a brief historical overview of the interaction between
Evangelicalism and science.

the Christian faith for each definition. These six

I. What Does Evolution Mean? A
Framework for Evangelical
Christians
Published October 27, 2007
Much of the confusion in the evolution debate lies in
the meaning of the word “evolution”. Since it can
have several different meanings, and even the
scientific definition of evolution can include several
distinct components, it is not surprising that many
confusing and confused arguments are articulated.
Certainly the conversation is very difficult when
conversation partners discussing evolution do not
share the same definition, conflate several of the
definitions, or elevate one component of evolution to
be descriptive of the whole.
Dr. Allan Harvey has provided a simple overview of
the various meanings of evolution. Harvey, a fellow
ASA member, recently taught a 6-part course on
“Science and Nature in Christian perspective” at his
conservative Presbyterian church in Boulder
Colorado, and the 5th essay in the series is on
evolution. (Note: The entire course looks
outstanding. It is presented in clear non-technical
terms, and Harvey includes wise counsel on how
Christians who accept the integrity of scripture
should approach science. For anyone beginning this
journey, I highly recommend reading through the
entire series)
Evolution: Six Different Meanings
Harvey provides a framework that includes 6
meanings for the word evolution, and remarks on
both the scientific certainty and compatibility with
meanings are:
E1. Change over time
E2. Common ancestry
E3. Evolutionary mechanisms (genetic variation,
natural selection).
E4. The ability for these Evolutionary mechanisms to
account (physically) for common descent.
E5. Origin of life (chemical evolution)
E6. Evolutionism
I have grouped these meanings into three categories:
those meanings for which the scientific evidence is
overwhelming and thus enjoy an extremely high
degree of certainty (E1, E2, and E3), those
definitions that are less certain based on the scientific
evidence (E4 and E5), and those definitions whose
conclusions are based on metaphysical assumptions
rather than the scientific evidence(E6).
Evolution Meanings Group#1: Extremely
high degree of scientific certainty
Harvey’s first three meanings for evolution (E1 – E3)
are all extremely well supported by the scientific
evidence. There is also, in Harvey’s view, no
incompatibility between these meanings and the
Christian Faith.
E-1) Change over time. This is the most basic
meaning of the English word “evolution,”
simply meaning that something changes with
the passage of time. For example, we might talk
about the evolution of popular music, or the
evolution of stars. With regard to living things,
this simply says that things are different than
they were in the past (there used to be

9
 dinosaurs; now there aren’t). Almost nobody
denies this meaning.
The only opposition to E1 is in the time available for
changes to occur. Young Earth Creationists (YEC)
would disagree with the scientific consensus of
cosmological evolution (formation of the cosmos eg.
stars) because of the billions of years required for
this process.
E-2) Common ancestry. This is central to what
scientists usually mean by “evolution.”
Common ancestry (or common descent) means
that life has branched out, so dogs and wolves
are distant cousins, dogs and cats are more
distant cousins, and if you go back far enough
dogs and fish, or dogs and trees, had a common
ancestor. You can put humans in the family tree
as well – related to chimpanzees, more distant
from other mammals, and so forth.
As I’ve commented earlier here, a shared ancestry
with non-human life does not contradict the biblical
claim of humanity’s creation in the image of God. As
well, as Harvey points out in his 3rd essay, and as
I’ve commented here, common descent does not
compromise the integrity of scripture. In fact, many
of the leaders in the Intelligent Design (ID)
movement (eg. Michael Behe, author of The Edge of
Evolution) also support common descent, even
though ID is often described as anti-evolution.
E-3) Evolutionary mechanisms (genetic
variation, natural selection). This refers to
specific natural mechanisms (first proposed by
Darwin, although in a primitive way because
genetics was not yet understood) that cause
species to change. Genetic variation is the fact
that (due to mixing of parental genes and to
mutations) children have different genes and
different traits. Natural selection refers to the
fact that the traits will make some children
more likely to survive and pass their genes on to
future generations.
Note that in recent years even YEC organizations
have started backing away from their opposition to
the mechanism of natural selection (see here and
here). They have also admitted that natural selection
can lead to new species, and that “in fact, rapid
speciation is an important part of the creation
model”.
Evolution Meanings Group#2: Less
Scientific Certainty
Harvey’s 4th and 5th meanings of evolution enjoy
less scientific certainty (in fact, there is very little
current evidence for E5). These definitions have
historically experienced aggressive opposition from
Christians (certainly more than E1-E3), but Harvey
does not believe this needs to be the case.
E-4) Mechanisms (E-3) account (physically) for
common descent. This is typically what
scientists mean by “the theory of evolution.”
We know these mechanisms produce changes in
species, but do they account for all the
evolution (in the E-2 sense) that has happened
through the history of life on Earth? Most
biologists, including most Christians working in
these areas, would say “yes,” but it is certainly
not as 100% established as the previous
meanings.
I believe E4 is the meaning that sharply divides
Christians who identify themselves as Theistic
Evolutionists (TE) or Evolutionary Creationists (EC)
from those who are anti-evolutionists, particularly
those that are supporters of ID. Harvey’s 4th essay
called “Natural Theology or a Theology of Nature”
explains briefly why E4 should not really cause any
conflict for Christians.
E-5) Origin of life (chemical evolution). The
theory of evolution is only an explanation for
the development of life from other life. How life
began in the first place is a different question,
but people have proposed somewhat similar
theories (the technical term is ambiogenesis) of
how that happened. That is an area where there
is much room for doubt; some people see it as
an insurmountable problem, while others think
science is coming closer to good explanations.
E5 is the meaning that really sparks derision among
anti-evolutionists. And the lack of evidence for E5 is
often used to discount the validity of E2 through E4.
It is still an open question whether a “natural” origin
of life theory that is supported by the scientific
evidence is 3 years away, 30 years away, 300 years
away, or is practically impossible. The important
point is that Christians need not oppose E5 for the
same reasons that E4 need not be opposed.
10
Evolution Meanings Group#3: Definitions
based on metaphysical assumptions
Harvey’s final meaning for evolution (E6) is
unrelated to science.
E-6) Evolutionism. I use that term to refer to a
meaning that is not science at all, but rather an
ideology that sometimes masquerades as
science. This starts with the philosophical
position that natural explanations exclude God
(the “God of the Gaps” error discussed in
Chapter 4). Since science has produced these
natural explanations for life, those with this
ideology claim to have pushed God out of the
picture. Of course these metaphysical
conclusions are not science in any way – those
who advocate this meaning are simply pushing
atheistic philosophy, and it is wrong to try to
claim it is a result of science.
This meaning for evolution is obviously not
something that can ever be accepted by a Christian.
But this is the meaning that both Christian anti-
evolutionists and “evangelistic anti-theist” atheists
push to the forefront. They conflate evolution
meanings E2 through E5 with E6, and thus state that
TEs and ECs are supporting atheism, materialism, or
moral relativism (anti-evolutionist claims) or are
deluded and cowardly for not following the scientific
evidence to its logical conclusion (anti-theist claim).
Conclusion
I really like how Harvey categorizes the various
definitions of evolution. They are helpful both for
Christians trying to understand evolution, and for
those of us that are frequently engaged in the
evolution / faith dialogue. I am planning to use these
definitions in my own conversations. Hopefully this
will allow all of us to hone in on the salient issues
more quickly, and avoid talking past each other. Ok,
maybe that's overly optimist, but it can't hurt to try.
II. Evangelicalism: Not simply
"Toned down Fundamentalism"
Published: May 21, 2007
Being an Evangelical can be embarrassing. After all,
the popular impression, fueled somewhat by the
media, is that Evangelicals are simply those
Christians that are a) political right-wingers and b)
anti-intellectual and anti-science. And the media can
uncover and recount enough stories and sound bites
to reinforce this impression.
A Mistaken view of Evangelical History
Those with just enough understanding of Evangelical
history to be dangerous would describe it this way:
 Fundamentalism is a reactionary Protestant
movement born in the early 20th century in the
southern US. Its two defining characteristics
were anti-evolutionism (with the Scopes Monkey
trial in 1925 being the critical event) and anti-
communism.
 After WWII, the Fundamentalists redefined
themselves as Evangelicals, toned down their
rhetoric, and shifted their message to “being
born-again”. However, this “kinder, gentler”
Fundamentalism is still right wing and anti-
science (and anti-evolution) at heart.
This characterization is wrong at so many levels that
it’s difficult to know where to start. I certainly can’t
untangle all these knots in a few blog entries. What I
would like to address are the incorrect assumptions
that 1) Evangelicalism is simply an outgrowth of
Fundamentalism, 2) anti-evolutionism is inherent in
Evangelicalism because of its characteristics, and 3)
from the beginning Evangelicals were uniformly
hostile to evolution. This post will deal with the first
assumption.
The Beginnings of Evangelicalism
The roots of Anglo-American Evangelicalism lie in
the 18th century “Great Awakening”. Starting around
1730 great revivals swept through British and
American churches led by evangelists like John
Wesley, George Whitefield, and Jonathan Edwards.
The emphasis of these revivals was personal
repentance, Christ’s forgiveness, and conversion to a
new life. What Wesley, Whitefield, and Edwards
preached against was “dead religion”, an outward
appearance of religion without true inner repentance.
Although new denominations were formed because
of the Great Awakening (eg. Methodists), the revival
also affected most protestant churches. People were
encouraged to repent and commit their lives to
Christ, but were not necessarily encouraged to
abandon their denominational allegiance. Thus,
unlike many other revolutions in the church and in
Christian theology, the key result was not the
formation of a new breakaway group of Christians
that forged a new path on their own. Rather, these
new ideas permeated virtually all protestant
denominations. Even today, more than 250 years
after the Great Awakening, most protestant
denominations have an Evangelical component.
11
The Beginnings of Fundamentalism
Fundamentalism on the other hand, was born in the
early 20th century in the US. Between 1910 and
1915, a prominent group of Evangelicals published
“The Fundamentals”, a series of books that outlined
foundational doctrines for Christianity. This was
meant to be a defense of the Christian faith, and
especially of the scriptures, against modern theology
and biblical criticism. Although the books themselves
were measured in tone, they served as a rallying cry
after WWI when conservative Evangelicals voiced
militant opposition to modern theology, the cultural
changes that modernism endorsed, and modern
scientific ideas, particularly evolution. This resulted
in schisms in several denominations between poles
that were now termed “Liberal” and
“Fundamentalist”.
The defining moment of Fundamentalism’s birth was
the “Scopes Monkey Trial”. In 1924, a public school
teacher named John Scopes was charged in
Tennessee with teaching evolution, something that
was forbidden by state law. Although the
Fundamentalists won the legal war, they were widely
ridiculed in the press and wider society, and thus lost
the public relations war. This event was influential in
the Fundamentalists sharp withdrawal from society.
Whereas Evangelicals had always participated in
wider culture and had been part of the American
establishment, Fundamentalists now separated
themselves from what they saw as “an ungodly
society”.
The Reemergence of Evangelicalism
Around 1950 the moderate evangelical voice
reemerged under the leadership of the likes of Billy
Graham. Rather than separating themselves from the
wider culture, with a focus only on a defense of the
bible, these Evangelicals again emphasized telling
the good news of Christ’s kingdom. No longer were
they content to sit on the sidelines. If they needed to
work with “Liberal churches” to promote the gospel,
so be it.
Conclusions
The above is obviously an extremely short summary
of Evangelical and Fundamentalist history; many
important themes have not even been touched, and
some of my statements should probably be more
nuanced. However, the key points are these.
 The birth of Evangelicalism preceded the birth
of Fundamentalism by almost 200 years. Thus it
is not correct to call it the progeny of
Fundamentalism.
 Whereas Evangelicalism was primarily a
positive movement (promoting the gospel),
Fundamentalism was primarily a negative
movement (against modern biblical
interpretation and scientific theories that
contradicted the bible). While Evangelicalism
wanted to engage the wider culture,
Fundamentalism wanted to withdraw from the
wider culture.
 The Evangelical reemergence in the mid-20th
century was not simply a maturing or
modification of Fundamentalism. Rather, it was
a rediscovery of its character prior to the onset of
Fundamentalism.
So what can we conclude about the relationship
between Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism and
why does it matter? The popular impression that
Fundamentalism is either equivalent to, or the root
of, Evangelicalism is wrong. However, it is clear that
the early 20th century Fundamentalist phase still
influences Evangelicalism. In “The Scandal of the
Evangelical Mind”, historian Mark Noll refers to this
phase as “The Intellectual Disaster of
Fundamentalism”. I would agree that the influence
has been primarily negative. At best,
Fundamentalism was an extreme phase from which
Evangelicals eventually emerged. At worst,
fundamentalism is a cancer from which we are still
trying to recover. The recent interest in “Creation
Science” by Evangelicals leads me to believe that we
have not completely rid ourselves of this disorder.
Recommended Further Reading:
 “Evangelicalism in Modern Britain”, D.W.
Bebbington. An excellent overview of
Evangelicalism from its birth in the early 18th
century to the end of the 20th century. Although
focusing on Britain, it does touch briefly on
American Evangelicalism as well.
 “A History of Christianity in the United States
and Canada”, Mark Noll. Covers all of
Christianity and not just Evangelicalism and
Fundamentalism, but provides a complete
overview of these movements in North America.
 “Fundamentalism and American Culture”,
George Marsden. Simply the best book on the
rise of fundamentalism in the early 20th century.
12

III. What is an Evangelical? Am I
one? Why do I choose to wear the
Label?
Published November 11, 2007
My objective for this site is to promote and foster a
specifically evangelical dialogue on the subject of
evolution. Others are certainly invited to participate,
but the invitation is primarily directed to
evangelicals. What are the implications of biological
evolution for our specifically evangelical theology?
What are the implications for our faith? Are there
areas of evolutionary science that have been tainted
with philosophical assumptions that contradict core
evangelical beliefs? How do we distinguish between
the physical evidence of God’s creation and the
metaphysical assumptions so often tied to the
explanations of the evidence? These are some of the
questions I believe evangelicals should be discussing.
Several weeks ago I provided a brief overview of the
meaning of evolution. Thus I have provided a partial
definition of how I believe this dialogue should be
framed. However, to understand what a specifically
evangelical dialogue would look like, I should also
define what evangelical means.
Defining Evangelicalism
What is the definition of an evangelical? What is the
difference between an evangelical Christian and
Christians who are not evangelicals? Where and how
do we draw the line? Maybe more pertinent to the
discussion in this particular dialogue, what reason do
I have for considering myself within the evangelical
fold? And why do I even want to hold onto the label?
As I’ve confessed previously, being an evangelical
can be downright embarrassing given the perception
of the movement in western society, perceptions
often completely supported by the attitudes and
actions of very broad swaths of evangelicalism that
are still tainted by fundamentalism. I’ll deal with my
own personal reasons for self-identifying as an
evangelical later. For the definition, I’ll turn to
another of my favourite authors, John Stackhouse.
Stackhouse is an evangelical historian, philosopher,
and theologian. His is also the senior advisor for the
Centre for Research on Canadian Evangelicalism
(CRCE), an initiative of the Evangelical Fellowship
of Canada (EFC). In this capacity he has provided an
updated definition of evangelicalism. Given how
notoriously difficult it is to define evangelicalism, I
applaud Stackhouse for his succinct, and I believe
successful, definition. His definition shares some
similarities to my own overview of evangelical
distinctives where I proposed that acceptance of
biological evolution does not contradict an
evangelical expression of the Christian faith. This
similarity is not surprising since we both utilize
David Bebbington’s framework proposed in
Evangelicalism in Modern Britain. However, I
believe Stackhouse provides a more practical and
comprehensive definition. He also includes some
astute observations on how the definition should be
used.
Six Criteria in the Definition
Stackhouse’s definition of evangelical includes the
following six criteria:
1. Orthodox and Orthoprax: Evangelicals
subscribe to the main tenets—doctrinal, ethical,
and liturgical—of the churches to which they
belong.
2. Crucicentric: Evangelicals are Christocentric
in their piety and preaching, and emphasize
particularly the necessity of Christ’s salvific work
on the Cross.
3. Biblicist: Evangelicals affirm the Bible as
God’s Word written, true in what it says and
functioning as their supreme written guide for
life.
4. Conversionist: Evangelicals believe that
everyone must trust Jesus as Saviour and follow
him as Lord; and everyone must co-operate with
God in a life of growing spiritual maturity.
5. Missional: Evangelicals actively co-operate
with God in his mission of redeeming the world,
and particularly in the proclamation of the gospel.
6. Transdenominational: Evangelicals gladly
partner with other Christians who hold these
concerns, regardless of denominational stripe, in
work to advance the Kingdom of God.
The middle four criteria are slightly modified
versions of Bebbington’s. The 6th criterion is
adopted from George Marsden (Fundamentalism and
American Culture and Evangelicalism and Modern
America), while the 1st is added by Stackhouse
himself, a criterion almost certainly assumed by both
Bebbington and Marsden.
Broad Criteria …
There are a couple of significant points to notice in
this definition. First, each of the criteria is relatively
broad. Doctrinal hair-splitting, so often the bane of
evangelical unity, is completely absent. So, for
example, in #3 there is no mention of inerrancy or
even infallibility. Many evangelicals do indeed
13
affirm the inerrancy of scripture, and most affirm its
infallibility. However, since there is significant
disagreement on what those terms mean, I agree that
it is helpful to avoid these adjectives in the definition
itself. (Interestingly the EFC’s own Statement of
Faith does include infallibility, although not
inerrancy. The American equivalent to the EFC, the
NAE, does the same in its statement of faith).
… but all Criteria are Mandatory
Second, Stackhouse insists that none of these criteria
are unique to evangelicals, but that evangelicals
uniquely affirm all six criteria as a cohesive set.
“[This] set of criteria functions properly only
as a set. There is nothing peculiarly evangelical
about any of them singly, of course. It is only
this set that helps scholars, pollsters, leaders
and interested others “pick out” evangelicals
from Christians in general or observant
Christians in general or observant Protestants
in general, and so on. Thus it must be employed
as a set, without compromise, as in the common
polling practice of counting as evangelicals
those who score “highly” on some scale
derived from such criteria. No, evangelicals do
not compromise on any of these values: They
don’t think it’s okay to fudge on the atonement
or the Bible, or to neglect churchgoing, or
avoid evangelism."
Why I Self-Identify as an Evangelical
So these six broad in scope but mandatory criteria
define evangelicalism. But why do I personally
identify with the movement? Why, if I do not agree
with many of the political, intellectual, and cultural
beliefs associated with evangelicalism, do I wish to
label myself an evangelical?
I strongly identify with evangelicals, and affirm that I
am an evangelical, precisely because the six criteria
defined above closely match my own view. I agree
with the doctrinal consensus affirmed by the apostles,
the church fathers, the reformers, and the leaders of
the Great Awakenings that birthed modern
evangelicalism. The cross of the incarnate, suffering
God is central to redemption. God has revealed
himself through scripture, and we must take seriously
its claim for authority. Being a follower of Christ
includes more than intellectual assent; it includes
radical trust in God’s guidance. We are all called to
proclaim and participate in the Kingdom of God. And
we must not let denominational differences hinder
this proclamation or participation. I believe all six
criteria are important.
No I am not a hard-line political right-winger, anti-
science, anti-intellectual, against all forms of biblical
criticism, or a participant in the culture wars. But I
fail to see how any of these latter characteristics, so
often descriptive of evangelicals, conform to the six
criteria in Stackhouse’s definition of evangelical. In
many ways, I believe these characteristics conflict
with our self-identifying criteria of being orthodox,
crucicentric, biblical, conversionist, missional, and
transdenomination Christians.
In short, I want to be called evangelical because,
despite the disrepute brought on the movement by
many evangelicals, its core characteristics are true
and right. I do not wish to be referred to as post-
evangelical because of this disrepute, just as I do not
wish to be called post-Christian because Christians
acting in a un-Christ like manner have sullied
Christ’s name. Just as we should not let anti-
evolutionary creationists prevent us from proclaiming
creation, neither should we let fundamentalist
evangelicals prevent us from proclaiming the
evangel.
So maybe the next time I introduce myself, I’ll say,
“Hi, I’m Steve, and I’m an evangelical creationist”.
Then again, maybe not.
IV. Two Myths about the
Relationship between
Evangelical Christianity and
Science
Published: June 5, 2007.
When I started this blog about a month ago, I stated
that the current relationship between evolution and
evangelicalism can best be characterized as warfare.
While this particular statement is true, I would like to
address two popular myths that are extrapolations on
the statement above. The first is that the relationship
between modern science and religion can be
described as one of continuous conflict. The second
is that Evangelicals have, from the beginning,
unanimously opposed both the scientific views of an
old earth and of biological evolution.
The Inherent War between Christianity and
Science: Mostly an Militant Atheist Myth
Militant atheists claim that the warfare between
Evangelicals and evolution is just one new battle
14
theater in the ongoing war between religion and
science that started during the Enlightenment. This is
a myth in the sense that it is a story, created in the
late 19th century, to support an agenda, in this
instance an anti-religious (primarily anti-Christian)
agenda. It is also a myth in the sense that the
historical evidence does not support the claim.
Modern science was born, grew, and flourished in a
thoroughly Christian Western Europe. Although it
would be an exaggeration to say that the Christian
worldview was a pre-requisite to the discovery and
success of modern science, or that the relationship
has always been harmonious, the worldviews have
much more in common than the myth above would
have us believe.
It is true that modern western Christians often regard
claims of new scientific discoveries with skepticism.
However, this is also true of the broader scientific
community. That is the way science functions.
“Show me the evidence” is that mantra that must be
followed, particularly when the discovery radically
shifts our understanding of how the world works.
Wacky theories are constantly being postulated,
theories that rarely jive with common sense, and are
often simply nonsense. Occasionally, significant
supporting evidence for these “wacky theories” is
found and we start referring to them as “brilliant
theories” instead. Being skeptical of the wacky, and
supportive of the brilliant, (even when they describe
the same theory) is simply good science.
It is also true that modern Christians have been
troubled, not only by the fact that many scientific
discoveries contradict “common sense”, but also how
some seem, at least initially, to contradict the bible.
Common sense confirmed that the earth was
immovable, and the bible supported it (1Chr 16:30,
Psalm 93:1). It was not only immovable, but also flat
(Psalm 104). The Sun moved around this stable earth,
and not visa-versa (19:4-6 and Eccl 1:5). The sky
was a solid dome (Gen 1:6-8) and the physical
location of heaven was just beyond the sky for that is
where Jesus ascended. In each case, it was
discovered through science that these ideas were
incorrect. However, Christians generally assimilated
the new scientific theories relatively quickly without
abandoning a trust in scripture. Although the old
“biblical” concepts of nature still have some recent
adherents (check out notes on flat earth believers and
geocentricists), the vast majority of Christians
(including those who are strict literalists) now reject
these ideas.
The Myth of Historical Evangelicalism’s
Unanimous Rejection of Evolution
Christians that support a YEC stance will sometimes
promote a second myth, that Evangelicals have
historically been unanimous in their condemnation of
both evolution and an old earth. The objective is to
portray Evangelicals that support either scientific
theory as abandoning core Evangelical beliefs. The
historical facts also contradict this claim.
19th Century Evangelicals Accepted an Old Earth
As the science of geology developed in the late 18th
and early 19th centuries, estimates for the age of the
earth increased rapidly from about 75,000 years old
to many millions of years old. Although Evangelicals
at first grappled with the implications of a very old
earth, they rapidly came to accept the fact that the
earth was more than 6000 years old, the age of the
earth calculated from a “literal” reading of Genesis.
Even Charles Hodge and Benjamin Warfield, the two
conservative Princeton Theologians who were
primarily responsible for formulating the modern
doctrine of biblical inerrancy, accepted the fact of an
old earth. The two most popular methods that
Evangelicals used to reconcile Genesis 1 with an old
earth were the day-age theory (each day was not a
literal 24 hour day but rather a very long period of
time) and the gap theory (the insertion of a very long
gap between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2). As the dawn of
the Fundamentalist revolution approached in the
early 20th century, very few Evangelical leaders still
clung to the idea of a young earth.
Some Early Evangelicals Accepted Evolution
Evangelical acceptance of the theory of evolution
was much less prevalent. Charles Darwin published
“The Origin of the Species” in 1859 and both
positive and negative reactions were almost
instantaneous. Those wishing to damage the
Christian faith saw it as an opportunity to prove that
the bible was composed of myths and fables;
conservative Christians saw it as a threat to God’s
role in creation. As such, even from the beginning,
there were those on both sides of the debate that
positioned evolution as inherently atheistic. By the
early 20th century most Evangelicals may have
accepted the fact of an old earth, but the majority of
them were dead set against the theory of biological
evolution.
What is interesting to note however, is that this
opposition within the Evangelical community was
not nearly unanimous. Some Evangelical leaders
were able to reconcile the theory of evolution with a
15
high view of scripture. The noted botanist Asa Gray,
an Evangelical from Harvard University, was the
most influential initial supporter of Darwin’s theory
in America. Benjamin Warfield mentioned above, as
well as other Evangelical theologians and clergy, also
supported the theory of evolution. Even several of
the authors of the Fundamentals, the series of books
from which the name “Fundamentalist” derives,
either supported a form of evolution or were willing
to accept it “if it could be proved on scientific
grounds”. Before fundamentalism, the acceptance of
evolution certainly did not mean banishment from the
Evangelical club.
The Two Myths Today
The obvious question is this: Why today, with the
availability of significantly more scientific evidence
to support an old earth, have many Evangelicals
rejected this claim? Why are they abandoning the
theological positions of past Evangelicals that came
to accept the evidence for an old earth, just as earlier
Christians had accepted the evidence for a round
earth and a heliocentric view of the solar system?
The rise of “Creation Science” and “Scientific
Creationism” is a story in itself, so it will have to
wait for a future post. However, I do find it ironic
that in the 1960’s while America was pouring
resources into science so they could launch a rocket
to the moon, Evangelicals began poring resources
into creation science so they could launch a counter-
attack on the theories of an old-earth and evolution.
These two myths, the myth of constant conflict
between science and religion, and the myth of
unanimous Evangelical rejection of an old earth and
evolution, are being used today to promote opposing
agendas. Militant atheists see it as a tool to help them
meet their objective of eradicating religion. Militant
creationists use it to prop up their credibility as
defenders of the faith. Neither have any interest is
seeing these myths exposed. And the objectives these
myths prop up can be dangerous, dangerous to our
faith, and dangerous to our mission. That will be
discussed in my next post.
Recommended Further Reading:
“Darwin’s Forgotten Defenders”, byDavid
Livingstone: Livingstone provides an overview of
the Evangelical response to biological evolution,
from the publishing of “On the Origin of the
Species” up until the fundamentalist controversy in
the early 20th century. As noted in my post, the
response was occasionally positive, and the negative
response was often understated.
“The Creationists”, by Ronald Numbers: If you
are captivated by in-depth, heavily footnoted
historical research (136 of 624 pages are footnotes),
and fascinated by creationism, then this is the book
for you. Ronald Numbers has written the definitive
study on the movement. Although rejecting the
conclusions of Creationism (it was the claims of
Creation Science that caused him to abandon his
faith), he writes an honest and thorough account that
is at the same time respectful to the Creationist cause.
“When Science and Christianity Meet”, by David
Lindberg & Ronald Numbers. A series of essays on
the interaction between science and Christianity. The
central theme of the book is that the relationship is
complex, and that the characterization of the
relationship as one of “constant conflict” is not
accurate. An academic book, but an excellent
volume. I particularly found the essay on Galileo
interesting, as it showed the conflict was primarily
political rather than religious.
16
D) Reconciling Scriptural Authority and Evolutionary Science

Evangelicals take a very high view of scripture. The perception that evolution is incompatible with God’s
revelation in scripture is at the heart of Evangelicalism’s antagonism towards the scientific theory. Here
are four posts that outline why I believe the scientific theory for evolution & a high view of scripture are
compatible. The first argues that the choice between science and scripture is a false dichotomy; indeed
mainstream scientific conclusions need not contradict the divinely inspired word of God if both scripture
and the scientific evidence are interpreted with integrity. The second post demonstrates that Evangelicals
need not choose between literal and liberal interpretations; in fact, both dogmatically literal and liberal
lenses obscure the truth of scripture. The third post provides a background on the theology and context of
the early chapters of Genesis while the fourth post provides a brief overview of the incarnational
approach to scripture, an approach I believe is very helpful for Evangelical Christians struggling with
issues of science and faith.

Evangelical attitude is to treat it with suspicion.

I. Scripture or Science: Do we
have to Choose?
Published May 16, 2007
What an awful choice. Do we actually have to choose
between believing scientific claims and trusting in
the bible? Can we trust the evidence readily apparent
from our collective five senses? Or should we instead
believe the knowledge provided by God through the
divinely inspired authors of the scriptures? Is it really
God’s word or the credibility of Science?
Scripture or Science: The Perceived Conflict
For many Evangelicals, “Scripture or Science” is not
only a legitimate question, it is THE critical question
with respect to science, and not actually a tough call
to make. “No apparent, perceived or claimed
evidence in any field, including history and
chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the
Scriptural record,” affirms the statement of faith of
the most prominent YEC organization “Answers in
Genesis (AIG)”. They state unequivocally that our
confidence must be placed in the knowledge
provided by scripture, not that given by science.
History, it is claimed, has spanned less than 10,000
years from the time of Adam to the present, and if
atheistic scientists have different answers, they are
severely mistaken or probably lying. The dating
mechanisms used by scientists are fallible; the bible
is not. Evolution is a wild theory built on
extrapolations from only a few fossilized bones, and
is synonymous with the term “missing link” because
of its inability to demonstrate even a single change
from one species to another over time. Science
indeed may have some answers, but the typical
However, we live in a world where the results of
science are obvious and widespread. In the past few
centuries western civilization has been revolutionized
by breakthroughs in physics, chemistry, medicine,
industrial engineering, and electronics to the point
that day-to-day life would be virtually
unrecognizable by even our great-grandparents.
Although the benefits of the technology based on
these scientific breakthroughs are sometimes
debatable, there is no question that science “gets a lot
of things right”. This causes tension for Evangelicals
who have been told to “trust the bible over science”.
If science “gets it right” so often (eg. we can put a
man on the moon, perform heart transplants, clone
sheep, and build nuclear power plants), why do entire
fields of academia like anthropology and biology get
it so wrong? What if they aren’t wrong? What if it is
bible that is wrong?
Scripture or Science: A Personal Conflict
This tension was very real for me growing up in a
conservative Evangelical culture. I certainly felt
apprehension as I approached high school courses in
history and biology that taught ancient hominid
development and evolutionary theory. What I learned
was that science and early human history were
something to be feared, something dangerous to faith,
and something to be avoided. After those initial
courses, I registered for no more classes in history or
biology.
My intellectual and spiritual journey out of this fear
has been circuitous and complicated. Maybe all
journeys are. Now, more than 25 years after my first
introduction to evolution, I no longer fear either

17
history or science. In fact, I relish opportunities to
immerse myself in both. And I do not believe I’ve
had to abandon scripture to accept the scientific
consensus.
Scripture or Science: A Choice that God Hates
What I have concluded is that the choice between
science and scripture is not only a false choice, it is a
heretical choice, a choice that God hates. Far from
defending the integrity of creation, I believe this
“science or scripture” choice diminishes and demeans
creation. God has revealed himself to us in both the
book of his works (creation) and the book of his
word (scripture). He wants us to understand both. We
do not defend God by placing one book in opposition
to the other. By doing this we are challenging his
trustworthiness.
Evangelicals that compare fallible human scientific
conclusions with the infallible word of God miss a
significant point. Not only do fallible humans
interpret scientific facts, they also interpret the bible.
Just as fallible humans can misinterpret the evidence
of creation, so too fallible humans can misinterpret
the scriptures. God is the ultimate author of both
creation and scripture and so the two books will be
consistent and will not provide contradictory
guidance. However, since humans interpret both of
God’s books, using the tools of science and
philosophy to interpret creation, and using the tools
of theology and hermeneutics to understand scripture,
there is the potential for conflict between a human
understanding of the two books. It is the filters we
use to perceive the truth that results in discord, and
not an inherent disharmony between the two truths.
Putting the Bible in a Box
Part of our problem, I believe, is the Evangelical
tendency to insist that everything must be simple,
clear, and understandable. Unfortunately the bible is
sometimes complex, ambiguous, and very difficult to
understand. It was set in a culture that as foreign to
us as ours would be to the ancient Hebrews. Thus, we
have to deal with many seemingly contradictory
concepts even when dealing only with the book of
scripture. In the past, Christians have been able to
resist the urge to ignore or abandon difficult
scriptures that seem to contradict others. We may not
completely understand God’s revelation in scripture,
but that does not diminish its stature as God’s word.
For example, in the 2nd century, Marcion insisted
that the Christian canon should not include the
Hebrew Scriptures (the Christian Old Testament). He
could not reconcile the God of love, compassion, and
sacrifice revealed in Jesus Christ with the Hebrew
God who, for example, ordered the genocide of the
Canaanites in the days of Joshua. Later, during the
reformation, Luther considered excluding the book of
James from his New Testament since he felt it
contradicted the theology of justification by grace
alone. Christians resisted both of these urges and
today our canon includes an eclectic group of
writings, writings that sometimes seem to contradict
each other, but all of which we maintain is God’s
word. Why then do we insist that the evidence of
God’s creation must be immediately discounted
whenever it seems to contradict a possibly fallible
interpretation of Genesis?
Interpreting God’s Two Books: Scripture &
Creation
For Evangelicals, it is not a question about which of
the two books we should read, but how we read them
and in which order. Even though God’s revelation
through his creation was initiated prior to his
revelation through the scriptures, it is the bible that
precedes creation from a theological point of view:
that is, it provides a more direct revelation of God,
his character and his plan. Nature should be read as a
sequel to scripture. What we discover there should be
put in the context of the theological framework we
build from a careful reading of the scriptures.
Sometimes we may need to wrestle with our
interpretation of specific scriptures based on our
findings in God’s creation. However, a theology built
on nature must be dependent on a theology built from
scripture, and not the other way around.
For example, we hear interpreters of science claim
that creation has no purpose, that humanity’s
existence is but an accident, and that nature
demonstrates that the creator is cruel. If we only read
the book of nature, this could be a reasonable
conclusion. However, by first reading the scriptures,
we understand that God is good, his creation is good,
he has a purpose for creation, and humanity was
created to be a steward of creation. We can thus
conclude that although the data behind the scientific
claims may be correct, the philosophical
interpretations and extrapolations are not.
There are times however, when evidence from God’s
creation can help highlight poor biblical
interpretation. For example, the scientific evidence
for an extremely old universe and earth is
overwhelming. What then should we do with
interpretations of scripture that claim the universe
and earth were created less than 10,000 years ago?
Some creationists have argued that the universe only
18
appears to be old. Thus its “apparent age” is much
older than its real age. The problem with this strategy
is that it is difficult to determine where
“apparentness” begins and ends. What is real, and
what is only apparent? Is it only astronomical
findings (age of the universe) and geological findings
(age of the earth) that are “apparent”? What about
human history? Can we trust anything that history
tells us of past human cultures? Did God somehow
mess with time at some point in the past? How do we
know anything that science tells us is true? For
example, maybe the Earth only appears to be round
but is actually flat.
The logical inference of “apparent age” completely
contradicts what we know of God and his creation.
Creation is real, not some “Matrix-like” illusion. He
is a loving God that has made a good, orderly, and
understandable creation; he is not a deceiver that has
created some type of prank on humanity. His
revelation, whether by creation or his word, is not
something that is secret, available to only the chosen
few who understand what is real, “Gnostics” with a
monopoly on true knowledge. His revelation is for
all, whether that be the message of redemption in
scripture, or the message of creation. Thus, in this
instance, the book of God’s works should guide us to
look more closely at his word in Genesis. Just as
creation provides the possibility for unbelievers to
acquire some knowledge of God (Rom 1:20), we
need in humility to accept that God, through his
creation, can also guide Christians to rethink
erroneous assumptions about scripture.
Science and Scripture: The Right Choice
So this choice, science or scripture, is completely
unnecessary. In fact, we need to honour both
scripture and science since they both come from God.
If we study science with discernment & integrity, and
study the scriptures with the same level of
discernment and integrity, I believe we can find
harmony. Unfortunately, the interpretation of both is
often done without the required level of discernment
or integrity, and perceived contradictions result.
Sometimes agreement is found only because the
interpretation of both is abused. But that is a post for
another day.
II. Literal or Liberal: Our only
choices for interpreting the
Bible?
Published: June 27, 2007
Beware. That first step on the slippery slope to
Liberalism can be very dangerous. So goes the
warning to Evangelicals trying to broaden their
intellectual horizons. And compromising on a literal
view of scripture is seen as the most dangerous step
of all. So how can Evangelicals accept modern
scientific theories of origins that seem to directly
contradict the literal scriptural account of creation in
Genesis? If we compromise on the literal
interpretation of scripture, isn’t this a sell-out? Aren’t
we left with relativistic hermeneutic rules that allow
us to make the bible say anything we want? If it’s not
a literal interpretation, isn’t it a liberal one? I believe
this choice between a liberal and literal interpretation
of scripture, like the choice between creation and
evolution, is a false dichotomy. In the latter case we
can accept both; in the former case we need choose
neither.
Evangelicalism, Liberalism, and Scripture: Brief
Historical Context
Evangelicals have been at odds with liberal
Protestantism since the 19th century when the
Liberals, claim Evangelicals, “sold out” to biblical
criticism. Liberals for the most part accepted modern
biblical scholarship, including radical new
understandings of the bible’s source, formation, and
interpretation. Evangelicals strongly rejected both the
conclusions and the evidence of this modern
scholarship. In the 19th century this defense included
the definition of the doctrine of biblical inerrancy.
More recently the focus has been on the “literal”
interpretation of scripture. Even though I disagree
with the Evangelical tendency to reject the evidence
of biblical criticism and modern biblical scholarship,
and the movement's outright hostility to liberalism, I
am unquestionably in the Evangelical camp on the
place of the scriptures. I take a very high view of the
bible and wholeheartedly acknowledge its divine
inspiration. My concern is that in reacting to a
Liberal interpretation of scripture Evangelicals have
chosen a method (ie. Literal interpretation only) that
may be just as theologically damaging (heretical?) as
the Liberal method.
19
Not so Literally Literal
Though many Evangelicals claim that they hold a
“literal” view of scripture, very few are
uncompromising literalists. Very few still believe
that the earth is a flat, immovable disk floating on the
ocean, even though this is what the ancient Hebrews
biblical writers believed and implied in scripture (See
Psalm 93:1, Psalm 104, and 1Chr 16:30). Neither do
we believe that the sky is a solid dome like structure,
which is the logical conclusion based on a literal
interpretation of the Old Testament. Almost everyone
agrees that the earth revolves around the Sun, even
though the ancient Hebrews thought the Sun moved
across the sky and then raced back to east to start
another day. (See Psalm 19:6 and Eccl 1:5). Very few
Christians maintain that a literal interpretation of
these passages is required. Young Earth Creationists
do claim to interpret the bible literally, but they do so
in a very liberal way. (One commentator described
flat-earthers, geocentrists, and young-earthers as the
conservative, moderate, and liberal factions within
the biblical literalist camp).
Focus on Science and History
When someone declares that they interpret the Bible
literally, they are generally referring to the science
and the history in the bible. I think this betrays a
modern bias, where historical and scientific facts are
the highest form of truth. Modern western culture has
elevated historical and scientific knowledge to the
point where other forms of knowledge are deemed
less important, and less reliable. But this is not the
perspective of the bible. To the wise man or woman,
it is the knowledge of God that is important.
The bible does contain history. It provides narrative
accounts of real historical events that were part of
God’s ongoing work with his people. In fact, recent
biblical scholarship demonstrates that the bible
faithfully represents ancient history as defined by the
people of that time, and is not, as claimed by some
biblical scholars, a much more recent historical
fabrication. But we should be careful not to judge an
ancient view of history by modern historiographical
standards. The bible also contains a type of science
since scripture describes how God’s creation worked.
However, these scientific ideas are ancient, not
modern. We may call these ideas outdated, or even
wrong, but that does not compromise the authority of
the scripture to speak in matters of faith or practice.
The historic view of the church fathers (eg. Clement
and Augustine) and reformers (eg. Calvin, Luther)
was that God accommodates his message to humanity
through the scriptures. That is, the bible is the
revelation of an unlimited God accommodating
himself to limited humanity using humanity’s limited
language and ideas. The bible uses some of these
scientific ideas to communicate God’s message, but it
never tries to teach science.
Science and history may be contained in the
scripture, but these are not the point of scripture. The
purpose of the written Word is to reveal God’s
message to humanity, and not to provide a complete
history of the world. Its purpose is to reveal how God
works in the lives of his people, and not how God’s
creation works. I believe that by insisting that all
scriptural narratives be interpreted “literally” we not
only depart from the traditional view of the church
fathers and protestant reformers, but we make the
bible say things it was never intended to say. By
focusing on the literal interpretation of scripture, we
may be missing the meaning of God’s message, even
as the Pharisees focus on the letter of the Law,
missed its spirit by a very wide margin.
What’s really important?
The important difference between an Evangelical and
Liberal understanding of scripture is not a literal
versus non-literal interpretation, but rather in the area
of revelation. While Evangelicals view scripture as
God’s self-disclosure to man, Liberals view scripture
as man’s search for God. Therefore, in a Liberal
view, the bible is certainly a holy book. However, its
source is not divine revelation, but man’s yearning
for the divine. The focus then is on human
experience throughout history, and the meaning
achieved from human interaction with the divine or
divine ideals. For an Evangelical, the focus of the
bible is on God’s plan of redemption. Jesus death is
the culmination of this plan, and his resurrection is
the final victory over death. These historical events
are the source of meaning for man; it is not man’s
experience that gives meaning to the events. The
Liberal focus on the human aspect of the bible to the
exclusion of the divine, not only misses the point, but
by removing the source of life, sucks the life out of
the Living Word.
Scripture: Both Human and Divine
On the other hand, the Evangelical focus on the
divine source of scripture can lead us to minimize or
ignore the fact that the bible is also a very human
book. It is God-breathed, not God dictated.
Evangelicals have spent an enormous amount of
20
energy trying to understand what divine authorship,
inspiration, and guidance really mean, and the
implications of this divine source. The simple fact
remains that many different human authors wrote the
bible, authors with human limitations and human
ideas, all living within cultural contexts and using
literary conventions very different than our own. God
accommodated his message to specific ancient
cultures; he met them where they were and revealed
himself in a manner that was understandable to them.
Just because God accommodated his message to
specific human cultures at specific times in history,
using scientific and cultural ideas specific to that
time, does not reduce the power of this message or
the truth of his revelation.
Thus the bible needs to be recognized as having both
a divine and human source, not as liberals would
claim, a human-only source with a divine message, or
as Evangelicals often imply, a divine-only source to a
human audience. The early church grappled with the
divinity and humanity of Christ, and concluded that
neither a divine-only description nor human-only
description was adequate. We agree that the “Word
made flesh” is both fully human, and fully God, even
though this seems to defy logical understanding.
Why then does an acknowledgement of the humanity
of the textual Word threaten or lessen the divine
origin of the scriptures? God condescended to take
on human form, experienced all the limitations of a
human mind and body, spoke in ways standard for a
specific local culture, and used the science of his day
to communicate his message of love, forgiveness,
and redemption. In the same manner, God also
accommodated his message in the written word.
Conclusion
I believe that remaining faithful to the scriptures does
not require us to interpret it literally in all cases. A
non-literal interpretation does not minimize the truth
and authority of the word. In some cases, it is surely
the more faithful method of remaining true to the
biblical message. This is definitely not always the
case and we need to be careful in jumping to
figurative conclusions, especially when they fit more
nicely with what we want the bible to say. What the
bible shows very clearly is that God will not limit his
revelation to a single culture. Every culture has had
its assumptions challenged as God gently, and
sometimes not so gently, leads his people to the truth.
We need to ensure that our theology does not lead us
to interpretations of the text, but that the text leads us
to the formation of our theology. Our theology
should not limit us to literal (or figurative, or
symbolic, or mythic!) interpretations of any text,
including our interpretations of the creation accounts.
Some recommended Reading:
 “Authority and Interpretation of the Bible: An
Historical Approach” by Donald McKim and
Jack Rogers: This book was very influential in
my own re-evaluation on how scripture should
be interpreted. It showed that the “conservative”
view of scripture held by most Evangelicals was
not really “conserving” the authority of scripture
at all. Instead, this conservative view was a
damaging, modern innovation.
 “Biblical Literalism: Constricting the Cosmic
Dance” by Conrad Hyers: A more forceful and
impassioned criticism of literalism. A romp of a
read.
 “Beyond Liberalism and Fundamentalism: How
Modern and Postmodern Philosophy Set the
Theological Agenda” by Nancey Murphy: A
personal top-10 of mine. Excellent historical
overview of the formation of liberal and
fundamentalist theology, what separates the two
camps, and in what ways they are very similar.
 “The Heresies of American Evangelicalism, Part
V: Holy Scripture” at The Fire and Rose Blog.
So you think Liberals are Heretics? Wait until
you look closely at an Evangelical view of
scripture.
III. Genesis 1 –11: Background,
Context, and Theology
Published October 4, 2007
Let’s face it. Scripture is often very difficult to
understand & interpret. Anyone who states otherwise
probably hasn’t read it very thoroughly or is glossing
over the difficult passages. As Christians we may
agree that the bible is divinely inspired, and agree
that it is God’s revelation, but we will often disagree
on what the inspired author actually meant, and what
specifically God’s revelation reveals. So it is no
surprise that Christians can on the one hand share a
commitment to the integrity and divine inspiration of
the Genesis creation stories, but on the other hand
arrive at radically different conclusions on how these
stories should be interpreted.
21

Interpreting Genesis 1 to 11: Introduction
To faithfully and fruitfully interpret scripture,
particularly puzzling sections of the bible, it is
helpful to understand the background of the biblical
author, the culture of day, and the context in which
the message of scripture would have been received.
This is particularly true of the early chapters of
Genesis since the worldview of these authors, and the
cultures they describe, are so vastly different from
our own. As Gordon Glover’s post indicates, modern
ANE scholarship has shed new light on the
worldview of the biblical authors and their audience.
Although most Evangelicals (including many
Evolutionary Creationists) have traditionally
interpreted Genesis 1-11 as an historical narrative,
most would also agree that the divine message goes
beyond, and is much more important than, simply
teaching history and science. So leaving aside the
question of historicity, what message is being
conveyed by the early chapters of Genesis? What
important and eternal truths should we take from
these narratives? Does the context of ANE culture
help clarify the message the inspired authors intended
to convey?
A Radical Prologue
The first eleven chapters of Genesis are a natural sub-
unit of the book. It can be viewed as a prologue to
the rest of the Genesis, and indeed the Pentateuch; it
is an introduction to the accounts of the Patriarchs,
the Exodus, and the giving of the Law. The stories
recorded in these early chapters show strong
similarities to ancient Mesopotamian myths, accounts
that were almost certainly recorded prior to the
writing of Genesis. Although the narratives and
scientific worldviews portrayed in Genesis are
similar to these Mesopotamian myths, the theology it
contains is radically different. In fact, Genesis is a
complete repudiation of Mesopotamian pagan
assumptions about God, humanity, and the world.
The Mesopotamian view of Creation
The ancient Mesopotamian accounts include stories
about the creation of the gods, gods that included the
sun, the moon, the stars, and sea monsters. Creation
was not an account of the forming of matter, but of
the ordering of eternal matter. According to the
Mesopotamians, matter pre-dated the formation of
the gods. The myths recount events in the lives of the
gods, including their internal bickering, wars, and
even the murder of the primary god by his progeny.
These events showed that the Mesopotamian gods
were far from perfect or even good; they displayed
characteristics of selfishness, vengefulness, and
capriciousness. Man was created as somewhat of an
afterthought, and his primary purpose seems to have
been to feed the gods.
A global flood account was also part of the
Mesopotamian mythology. The gods had become
tired of the noisiness of humanity, were concerned
about human overpopulation, and thus brought about
a flood to destroy their own creation. However, once
the flood started, it soon raged beyond the control of
the gods and they became terrified for their own
safety. When the flood finally subsided, a lone
human survivor was found, saved not because of his
righteousness, but because he was the favourite of
one of the lesser gods. The primary god was in fact
quite surprised to find him alive. The theme of the
story of man following the flood was one of progress.
Even though he started out quite humbly, he
advanced beyond these modest beginnings. There
was great optimism for humanity improving itself
even further.
The Hebrew view of Creation
The theology of the early chapters of Genesis stands
in stark contrast to that implied by other Near Eastern
primeval history. Rather than many gods, there was
but one God. The Hebrew God was not one of the
pantheon, but Lord of the universe. This was no local
deity concerned with the internal politics and
religious rites of a single nation. Rather than being
part of nature, this God was the primary cause of
nature. Rather than ordering pre-existing matter, he
created it. Everything, including objects the
Babylonians viewed as gods (eg. sun, moon, stars,
sea monsters), was created by him and was
subservient to him. There were no stories about God.
The Genesis record contains no theo-biography; God
simply was. God was both omniscient and
omnipotent; there was no need for him to be afraid of
his creation, or even surprised by anything. He was
in complete control. Finally, God was good, and
loved his creation. Rather than treating it as a useful
object, he genuinely cared for it. Rather than being
capricious and unpredictable, God was an orderly
divinity that could be trusted.
The Genesis view of humanity was also quite
different from the view held by the Hebrews’
neighbours. Rather than an afterthought, man was the
22
apex of creation. Rather than a functional slave, he
was created in God’s image, held a place of honour,
and was given the responsibility of caring for the rest
of creation. God went out of his way to provide for
man (food, a wife, clothing) rather the other way
around. Unfortunately, man was disobedient to God.
Man’s problems are and were a result of this
disobedience. Rather than being optimistic like the
Mesopotamians about man’s progress, Genesis was
very pessimistic about his ability to progress on his
own. The story of the Tower of Babel is a scathing
satire on Babylonian claims that their ziggurats were
reaching upwards to the gods. In fact, God needed to
descend to reach their towers. Rather than
demonstrating a powerful and growing civilization,
these towers symbolized confusion. On his own, man
could not reach God or solve any of his problems. It
was only through God’s faithfulness that man had
any hope at all.
A God of Love, not Violence
Finally, one needs to appreciate that for the ancient
Hebrews, the violence evident all around them was
not an inherent feature of Creation. As Lesslie
Newbigin states in “A Walk Through the Bible” (Hat
Tip to Fire and Rose):
The first chapter of Genesis was almost
certainly written during the time when Israel
was in exile in Babylon. And we must picture
these writers as slaves under the shadow of this
mighty empire with its palaces, fortresses and
temples. Babylon had its own account of
creation, as we know from the work of modern
scholarship. It was a story of conflict, battle
and bloodshed. Violence was the theme
underlying the whole creation story as the
Babylonians understood it.
The writers of Genesis had a quite different
picture of God. They were the descendants of
Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Moses. They knew
God as the redeemer God, the God who had
saved his people from bondage. And they had a
totally different picture of God’s creation—not
as the result of violence but as the action of a
God of love and wisdom who, out of sheer love,
desired to create a world to reflect his glory
and a human family to enjoy his world and give
back his love.
Conclusion
Creation is a doctrine shared by all Christians. As
part of the good news, we need to proclaim the
message of creation to a fallen world. Our creation
story in Genesis communicates truths about God and
humanity, truths revealed by God through the writer
of Genesis to all of humanity, in all cultures, in all
places, and throughout all of history. Although the
message is contained in literature that is
accommodated for an Ancient Near East mindset, it
is not truth relevant for this culture only.
Genesis speaks to a world consumed by violence,
selfishness, and greed. It speaks to a world that is
convinced there is no purpose. It speaks to a world
that thinks human reason can overcome any problem,
and that humanity can “rise above our evolutionary
impulses”. In short, it speaks to our world too.
Though the truth in Genesis is contained in a vessel
that is foreign to a modern, science-oriented culture,
it is a truth that modern man desperately needs to
hear. Let’s make sure the world hears this message,
and not the one that is garbled, tainted, and damaged
by a dogmatic insistence and focus on specific
scientific claims.
IV. An Incarnational Approach to
Scripture
Published March 16, 2008
For many Christians the approach adopted in the
science / faith relationship often hinges on their
approach to the interpretation of scripture. This is
certainly true for many modern Evangelicals; the
conflict they see between science and faith is a direct
result of their literal “face-value” approach to
scriptural interpretation. But this method of
interpretation has not fared well in the light of
modern scholarship, and doctrines of scripture have
tended to be expressed negatively rather than
positively. Unfortunately, the negative qualifiers used
to describe the bible often raise even more
troublesome questions.
Where oh where did we go wrong? Why must we
always be so defensive? Is it even possible to have a
high view of the scriptures, one that acknowledges
their divine source, without closing our eyes to the
evidence from modern science, history, and biblical
criticism? Is there a model that works?
23
I believe Peter Enns provides an excellent answer to
this question. And, unlike many modern biblical
scholars, he proposes a model that maintains
Christian orthodoxy. In fact, it seems to me, Enns’
model for interpreting scripture is more orthodox,
more in tune with the doctrines formulated by the
early church, and more coherent with scripture itself.
As Enns takes pains to point out, his ideas are not
really that new.
specific culture to which it was written.
Second, the incarnational analogy helps us to see the
Bible for what it is, rather than what we expect it to
be.
What is so helpful about the incarnational
analogy is that it reorients us to see that the
Bible’s “situatedness” is not a lamentable or
embarrassing situation, but a positive one.

The Incarnational Analogy That the bible, at every turn, shows how
“connected” it is to its own world is a
In his book Inspiration and Incarnation Enns lays out
necessary consequence of God incarnating
what he calls “The Incarnational Analogy”.
himself. (page20)
The starting point for our discussion is the
An incarnational approach to scripture allows us to
following: as Christ is both God and human, so
be surprised, to have our expectations jolted without
is the Bible. In other words, we are to think of
necessarily jolting our faith.
the Bible in the same way that Christians think
about Jesus. Christians confess that Jesus is
A Return to an Orthodox view of Scripture
both God and human at the same time. He is
The early church grappled with articulating a
not half-God and half-human. He is not
doctrine of Christ. Although there were those who
sometimes one and other times the other. He is
minimized Christ’s divinity (eg. Arianism) and those
not essentially one and only apparently the
that minimized Christ’s humanity (eg. Docestism),
other. (Page 17)
the Church firmly and unequiviocally declared that
Jesus was “very God of very God, begotten, not
Just as Jesus, the Word made flesh, is 100% human
made, being of one substance with the Father”
and 100% God, so too the written Word. The Bible is
(Nicene Creed) and “Perfect in Godhead and also
not simply a dictation of divine thoughts, nor is it
perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man”.
simply human ideas about the divine. The source of
(Chalcedonian_Creed).
scripture is 100% divine, from God, revealing God’s
message to humanity. At the same time it is 100%
In the 19th century “Battle for the Bible”, many
human, displaying the idiosyncrasies, cultural
liberal Christians abandoned orthodoxy and declared
assumptions and even biases of its human authors. It
the bible to be simply a human book. Evangelicals
declares God’s timeless message, albeit from a very
rightly reacted to this, defending its divine source.
specific human cultural and temporal perspective.
However, I believe we may have become so zealous
in our declaration of the scriptures’ divine source,
Although the incarnational analogy Enns proposes
that we may have minimized its humanness. In short,
has its limitations, I believe that a) it is helpful for
this “Docetic” view of scripture may be heretical.
Evangelicals grappling with faith & science /
Enns has this to say:
historical / biblical criticism issues and b) it offers to
correct an Evangelical understanding of scripture that
It is somewhat ironic, it seems to me, that both
may have strayed somewhere beyond the bounds of
liberals and conservatives make the same error:
orthodoxy.
they both assume that something worthy of the
Helpfulness of the Incarnational Analogy title “Word of God” would look different from
what we actually have. The one accents the
I believe the incarnational analogy is very helpful.
human marks and makes them absolute. The
First, it is a positive statement about what scripture is
other wishes the human marks were not as
(both divine and human) rather than a negative
pronounced as they were. They share a similar
statement (eg. inerrant) about what it is not. It affirms
opinion that nothing worthy of being called
that scripture is God’s special revelation and thus can
God’s word would look so common, so human,
be trusted. The analogy also affirms that scripture is
so recognizable. But when God speaks, he
very human. God has a keen interest in ensuring that
speaks in ways we would understand. (page 21)
his message of love and redemption is communicated
clearly. To accomplish this, he accommodated his As I indicated in an earlier post on scriptural
message in a way that was understandable to the interpretation, we need not box ourselves into a

24
literal hermeneutic (with an over emphasis on the
divine source) or a liberal hermeneutic (with an over
emphasis on the human source). We can choose an
incarnational approach, one that celebrates both the
divine and human sources of scripture.
Responding to the Incarnational Analogy
Enns views have not been received favourably by all
Evangelicals. (For example, see this discussion
between Paul Helm and Enns: Helm's review of I&I,
Enns' Response to the review, and Helm’s response
to Enns). Another writer has called I&I “The Most
Controversial Book of the Year”. However, for
myself, his thesis is both simple and fruitful since it
helps makes sense of some difficult theological
problems. More importantly, it lays out a positive
view of scripture, one that is more appropriate for
sharing the gospel.
So when someone asks incredulously “Do you really
believe that Jesus rose from the dead, and that
following him will make any difference?” and “Do
you really trust a book that utilizes a cosmology
refuted almost 2500 years ago?”, we can answer both
questions in the same way. “Yes I do believe that.
Want a coffee? This explanation might take a few
minutes.”
25
E) Evolution: Theological and Moral Implications

Most Evangelicals reject biological evolution, not because they have examined the scientific evidence, but
because they believe the implications of evolution are incompatible with orthodox Christian theology and
Christian morality. The six following posts address these concerns. The first post provides a brief
review of five common theological objections to evolution, and reasons why these objections are not
valid. The next two posts provide a more detailed look at two common theological objections: 1) How
can humanity be created in the image of God if we evolved from pre-existing animals, and 2) How can the
Fall be reconciled with evolution. The fourth post explains that there are positive theological aspects to
evolution, while the last two posts deal with objections to evolution based on moral grounds.

Liberal: Our only Choices for Interpreting the Bible,

I. Theological Implications of an
Evolving Creation: Five common
Faithstoppers
Published December 9, 2007
Evangelicals generally reject biological evolution
because the theological implications are perceived to
be incompatible with the Christian faith. And it is not
simply one or two tough theological nuts to crack –
at times the list of irreconcilable differences seems
endless. So it is understandable when Evangelicals
struggle to reconcile the scientific evidence with their
theology. In this post, I will briefly survey five of the
most common theological challenges to evolution.
Anti-evolutionists repeat all five of these challenges
frequently; all five are considered “Faithstoppers” ie.
Christians can (and have) used these to categorically
state that “Choose this day whom you will serve”
applies to the evolution / Christian faith dialogue.
However, I believe that none of these five challenges
demonstrate an incompatibility between evolution
and Christian theology.
1) The theory of biological evolution contradicts the
Genesis creation accounts. Therefore anyone who
takes seriously the integrity of scripture must reject
evolution.
Although this challenge is the one most frequently
raised, it is also the one that is most easily reconciled.
The theory of biological evolution does contradict
one specific (fallible human) interpretation of the
Genesis creation accounts (ie. that the days of
Genesis are 7 literal 24 hour days). But this
interpretation is becoming increasingly discredited.
For a background on why I believe biological
evolution can be completely compatible with the
Genesis creation accounts, see my posts Literal or
and Genesis 1-11: Background, Context, and
Theology, as well as Gordon Glover’s post
Interpreting the Genesis creation accounts in the light
of ANE history.
2) The theory of evolution implies that a) there was
no historical Adam and Eve, b) there is no single
pair of recent ancestors from which all humanity is
exclusively descended, c) therefore there was no
historic instantaneous Fall or specific moment in
time that corresponds to the origin of sin, d)
therefore sin does not exist, and e) therefore
Christ’s death is meaningless. This is incompatible
with the Christian faith.
First, statement a) is clearly false and many (perhaps
most) evolutionary creationists believe in a historical
Adam and Eve. (See Is Genesis 1-11 Historical?
Many Evolutionary Creationists say Yes.) I agree
that statements b) and c) are very difficult to
reconcile with traditional Christian theology.
Statement c) is in fact the most difficult implication
of biological evolution for me personally. However, I
do not agree with the logical connection between
statement c) and statements d) or e). The existence of
sin has been called the “most empirically supported
doctrine”. That you and I are sinners is without
question. That Christ died to redeem us, and through
his resurrection conquered death, is the foundation of
our faith.
But Christ died because I sinned. His death was
retroactively necessary because almost two millennia
later I would turn away from God. This is true
whether or not there ever was a historical Adam, or
for that matter a historic fall. The good news is that
“God will forgive you”, not that “God forgave Adam
and Eve for eating the apple”. I am not making light
of the problem of identifying a historic instantaneous

26
Fall, nor of the New Testament references to Adam’s
sin. I personally find this very challenging and will
discuss this in future posts. I am merely saying that
the good news of redemption does not necessarily
hinge on positively identifying a historical
instantaneous fall. That our entire faith rests on the
notion of a historic instantaneous Fall is, for me
anyways, categorically false.
3) The theory of evolution implies that a human is
no more special than a chimp, a lizard, an ant, or
bacteria. Therefore it is incompatible with humanity
being created in the image of God.
I disagree with this implication. How we were
created is irrelevant to the final product. That
evolution implies a close connection to our animal
forebears does not minimize our role in God’s eyes.
We are his representatives on earth because he
declared it to be the case, not because of who we are.
Biological evolution does not challenge Christian
views of human identity, our relationship to God, or
our mandate within God’s creation. Evolution may
have implications on how and when God bestowed
his image on humanity so, for example, "How did
humanity’s special relationship with God come
about?", "How was this relationship damaged?", and
"How do the spiritual & physical aspects of humanity
interact, particularly in the light of modern
neuroscience?" are all excellent (and difficult)
questions. But our perplexity with respect to the
historical narrative of the “ensoulment” of humanity
should not in anyway minimize how we view
ourselves in the eyes of God.
For more background on this topic, see my post:
Created in God’s Image or Evolved from Apes?
4) Evolution is a process that includes an
unfathomable amount of pain, death, and
extinction. It is incompatible with a Loving Creator.
Theodicy is a very difficult problem for Christians.
How can an all powerful, all loving God allow so
much evil to exist? Why did he even allow the
possibility of evil in his creation? Couldn’t an
omniscient designer have done a better job? These
are excellent questions but ones that, I believe, are
unrelated to the process of evolution. Whether one
explains the fossil record by many progressive
creative acts, or the gradual creative process of
evolution, the fact remains that much pain and death
have occurred. Theodicy is a challenge for
Christianity and theism in general, not just for
evolutionary creationists.
(Note: I can very much understand the allure of YEC
for Christians that struggle with the issue of theodicy.
It seems to provide such a simple answer. Leaving
aside the scientific evidence against YEC, and the
poor scriptural interpretations used to support it, I
think a closer examination of YEC’s version of
theodicy provides no better solution. That too is a
post for another day.)
5) Accepting the scientific evidence for evolution
leads to moral relativism. It is thus a belief that is
incompatible with a Christian worldview based on
scriptural principles.
It is absolutely unnecessary to connect evolutionary
explanations for the development of life on earth
with human moral choices. Biological evolution
through the process of natural selection is an
explanation of how things have changed over time
but provides no guidance on how humanity should
act in the future. It is descriptive, not prescriptive.
We can certainly gain an understanding of how God
created through scientific discovery. However, for
guidance on how we should relate to both our
neighbour and to our God, we look to God’s
revelation in the written Word and in the Word made
flesh.
For more details on this, see Does Evolution lead to
Moral relativism?
Summary
In summary, none of these 5 implications of
biological evolution significantly add to the
challenge of defending Evangelical theology. Each
does seem somewhat problematic at first glance, but
on closer examination provides no real reason to
reject evolution.
Other Challenges
Ok, In some ways I cheated. This post dealt not with
“The 5 most common challenges” but with “The 5
most common challenges that are easily addressed”.
There are other implications of evolution that are not
so easily addressed. These include the following:
1. Divine Action: Describing how God acts in the
world in the light of an evolutionary process that
provides a full physical explanation for the
development of life on earth.
2. The relationship between Sin and Death.
3. The incompatibility of evolution with the New
Testament references to a historical Adam, and
specifically his actions related to the Fall.
27
4. The origin of the “Image of God” or the
“ensoulment” of humanity, particularly in the light of
modern neuroscience.
5. The origin of Sin
These "5 common challenges not easily addressed"
are listed in ascending order of difficulty for me
personally. Number 1 is simply a difficulty in
articulation; with #5 I have trouble even imagining a
solution.
II. Made in God’s Image or
Evolved from Apes?
Published July 17, 2007
Then God said, "Let us make man in our image,
in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of
the sea and the birds of the air, over the
livestock, over all the earth, and over all the
creatures that move along the ground." So God
created man in his own image, in the image of
God he created him; male and female he
created them. Genesis 1: 26, 27
For many Evangelicals, human evolution simply
cannot be reconciled with our creation in the image
of God. Evolution seems theologically dangerous
because it implies a close biological connection
between humans and animals. An acceptance of
evolution, it is feared, leads inevitably to the
acceptance of a shared spiritual nature between
humans and animals. Thus it logically follows that
we must grant a spiritual nature to animals, or we
must conclude that humans do not have a spiritual
dimension. Neither of these positions is compatible
with orthodox Christianity. However, I do not
believe that this dichotomy is warranted by the
biblical account of man’s creation in the image of
God.
The Image of God: What does it Mean?
In facing this potential dilemma, it would be helpful
if we had a clear understanding of what exactly “The
Image” means in Genesis 1:27. Unfortunately, its
meaning is somewhat ambiguous. That it is a unique
quality given by God to man is clear; what that
quality entails is unclear as biblical interpreters do
not agree on its meaning. There are three
interpretations that are most common. First, it could
mean the mental and spiritual faculties that humans
share with God, for example, reason, free will, and
self-consciousness. Second, it could mean God’s
divine representative on earth. This interpretation is
supported by the mandate to care for God’s creation
recorded in Gen 1:26 & 28. Third, it could mean
man’s ability to relate to God. For myself, any of
these interpretations (or maybe all of them) could be
correct.
The Real Implications of the Image of God
If the exact meaning of the word image in Gen 1:27
is unclear, what “the image” describes is not. The
image describes what we as humans are; it does not
describe how we were created. It says absolutely
nothing about the process of God bestowing man
with unique qualities and a unique position on earth.
The entire process is described in a single word:
created. Thus the writer of Genesis is clear on “who”
brought the process about, and for what purpose, but
is unconcerned with the materials (if any) that were
used to create.
The second account of the creation of man (Gen 2:7)
does provide some additional details to this creation.
Man is shaped from dust. Just as God knits or shapes
us in our mother’s wombs (Ps 139), so God shaped
the first man. Man is not created out of thin air, in a
puff of magic, but is lovingly moulded from
common, useless dirt. So since the bible describes
our original material as being dust, why should a
creation process that includes intermediary animal
states be theologically dangerous? Original material
is not a problem with God whether for a physical
creation or for a spiritual one.
Opposition to Evolution: Human Pride?
I believe that evangelical opposition to evolution
from pre-existing animals has just as much to do with
pride as with a desire to defend traditional
interpretations of scripture. We focus more on our
spiritual characteristics than our creaturely
characteristics. In other words, we view ourselves as
closer to God (because we share a spiritual
dimension) than to animals (with whom we share the
characteristic of being creatures of God). This is the
same type of pride that Moses warned the Israelites
about:
“It was not because you were more numerous
than any other people that the LORD set his
heart on you and chose you--for you were the
fewest of all peoples. It was because the LORD
loved you and kept the oath that he swore to
your ancestors, that the LORD has brought you
out with a mighty hand, and redeemed you from
the house of slavery, from the hand of Pharaoh,
king of Egypt (Deut. 7:7-8).
28
The Israelites were “The Chosen” because God chose
them, not for any inherent quality they possessed.
And this bundle of molecules, genes, cells, and
organs we call ourselves is the image of God because
he bestowed it upon us, not because it is a
particularly noteworthy bunch of molecules, genes,
cells, or organs. As Jesus indicated, God could easily
have called on other parts of creation to serve and
worship him. (Luke 3:8, Luke 19:40).
Difficulties Need to be Acknowledged
Although biological evolution does not, in my
opinion, challenge traditional interpretations of who
we are as humans, our relationship to God, and our
mandate within God’s creation, it certainly does
challenge traditional notions of how this relationship
with God came about, how the relationship was
damaged, and possibly, how the spiritual & physical
interact.
 If modern Homo sapiens gradually developed
from earlier hominids over hundreds of
thousands of years, at what point was God’s
Image bestowed on humanity? And does this
imply that the “first human” had non-human
parents who did not share the image of God?
 At what point does “sin” enter the world? At
what point does violence change from basic
animal survival instincts to breaking God’s
moral law?
 With new evidence from the world of
neuroscience, should we even speak of the
human “soul” or is this concept simply a vestige
of ancient Greek philosophy that so clearly
influenced western traditions including the early
Church fathers? Are there better ways of
describing and explaining our unique spiritual
nature?
These are still somewhat uncomfortable & perplexing
questions for me. Although I now have a greater
appreciation for how some Evangelical Christians
come to terms with these questions, my own answers
are still very much early in the conceptual stage. The
answers fit into what I believe is a self-consistent
theological framework that is supported by the
biblical record. However, there are enough gaps in
this framework right now that I’m not able to clearly
articulate it even to my own satisfaction.
But these questions on the origins of humanity, sin,
and the image of God do not change the fact of who
we are right now. Nor do they change how we should
relate to God or how we should carry out our
mandate. We are, as Graeme Finlay asserts, Homo
divinus, the Ape that bears God’s image.
Recommended Reading:
 Genesis 1 – 15 (Word Commentary), by Gordon
Wenham: An excellent commentary on the initial
chapters of Genesis from an well respected
Evangelical scholar including a particularly
useful overview of the interpretation of “The
Image” in Genesis 1
III. Reconciling the Fall and
Evolution
Published February 25, 2008
The origin of sin in a universe created by an
omnipotent, omniscient, and all loving God is a
perplexing theological challenge. Traditionally, the
disobedience of Adam and Eve is seen as the event
that inaugurated the Fall. The rest of humanity is
thought to have inherited Original Sin either
biologically (if the couple is seen as the ancestor to
all of humanity) or through some mysterious process
of representation (the federal view). However, this
story of sin’s origin is becoming increasingly
difficult to defend. Genetic evidence indicates that
humanity cannot trace its ancestry to a single pair of
recent humans, so our shared biological parentage to
a couple of Neolithic farmers is impossible to
reconcile with the scientific record. On the other
hand, the federal view runs into difficult theological
issues (eg. were humans that pre-existed or coexisted
with Adam and Eve only sinful after the curious
incident with the forbidden fruit?)
As I indicated earlier in my post on the Theological
Implications of an Evolving Creation, the origin of
sin, and the related issue of reconciling the scientific
record with the theology of the Fall, particularly as
articulated by the apostle Paul (eg. Romans 5), are
two of the most difficult theological issues for me
personally. Although I can’t say I’ve come to any
definitive conclusions, I’d like to point to two helpful
resources for others that are thinking through these
same issues. The first is a lecture given by Denis
Alexander at the joint CIS / ASA / CSCA annual
meeting last year. The second is a series of posts by
Stephen Douglas on his blog Undeception.
Darwinian Evolution: The Really Hard Questions
Denis Alexander is not as well known as other
Evangelical scientists that support an evolutionary
29
creation (eg. McGrath, Polkinghorne, Collins), but he
has made some significant contributions to the
science-faith dialogue. (My selected bibliography has
4 entries for Alexander). I suspect his lecture entitled
“Darwinian Evolution: The Really Hard Questions”
was one of the conference’s more thought provoking
presentations (You can download the audio, his
powerpoint, and his accompanying handout from the
ASA website).
Reconciling the Fall is one of the “Really Hard
Questions” that Alexander discusses in his
presentation. Before dealing with this question, he
makes some pertinent introductory remarks:
Some Christians have a habit of making up the
science to fit their apologetics. That’s not good
enough. Integrity demands an equally robust
stance towards both the science and the
theology. Second, in practice that means that
we have to get used to not knowing the final
answers to some issues, which is clearly the
case here, and yet at the same time doing the
best we can in building sensible models that
integrate both the science and the theology. And
we need to discuss those models tentatively,
because there simply aren’t enough data to be
too sure.
He provides a quick scientific, biblical, and
theological background to the problem, and then asks
the key question:
So how, then, do we understand the Fall and
the Adam & Eve narratives in conversation with
our current understanding of human evolution?
Of course some would say that the conversation
shouldn’t even be attempted – it’s like
comparing anthropological apples with
theological oranges. But the fact remains that
at some stage over the past few hundred
thousand years anatomically modern humans
gradually emerged, and it’s also a fact that
personal knowledge of God must have started
sometime when it wasn’t there before.
Alexander then provides three models for defining
the relationship between the biblical and the
scientific accounts. (Actually, there were 5 models –
but I’m going to ignore the 2 models that discount
the scientific evidence for biological evolution).
1. Model A is the “Ahistorical View”. The Fall in
this model is a theological narrative that is not related
to historical events.
2. Model B is the “Gradualist Protohistorical View”.
This view defines the Fall as a process happening
over a long period of time.
3. Model C sees the Fall as a specific event at a
specific time in history whereby a covenant couple
(or perhaps a covenant community) is called by God,
but then through disobedience brings spiritual death
on humanity.
Each model has unique strengths, but also unique
flaws. Alexander indicates that he personally leans
toward Model C, but admits to some vacillation
between all 3 and quips that he holds to “Model A on
Mondays, Model B on Tuesdays and Model C the
rest of the week”. It is a good discussion that I
recommend to others grappling with this issue.
Interacting with Paul’s Theology of The Fall
Stephen Douglas has just finished an excellent 8-part
series on biblical inspiration, inerrancy, and
hermeneutics. Some of the themes he develops will
be familiar to those who have followed my own blog,
but he goes into much more depth. You aren’t going
to be able work through his whole series in a brief
20-minute browse (I suggest he consider writing a
book :-) ) but it is definitely worth the time invested.
Of particular interest for me were the final two posts:
Case Study: The Fall and The Fallout. In these two
posts he applies the principles of biblical
interpretation discussed earlier in the series to the
issue of The Fall. What is noteworthy is that he
focuses particularly on the New Testament (NT)
discussion of the Fall, rather than concentrating on
the creation narratives in Genesis.
This focus on the NT discussion is noteworthy for
two reasons: First, Evangelical Old Testament (OT)
scholars with a high view of the scriptures (eg. Enns,
Walton, Wenham) have already laid the groundwork
for the science / theology discussion with respect to
the Genesis creation accounts, including the Fall
narrative (eg. highlighting their place in ANE
literature even while acknowledging their divine
source). From a NT perspective, I don’t believe the
groundwork for this discussion has been as prevalent.
Secondly, it is unclear whether the ancient Hebrews
believed the early part of Genesis was historical (it
most likely was not an important question for them),
but it is clear that the Apostle Paul, like his 1st
century Jewish contemporaries, believed that Adam
was a historical figure, and that the Fall corresponded
to a single event in the Garden of Eden. Thus it is the
30
relavent NT passages, and not the Genesis creation
accounts, that provide the most significant challenge
to the reconciliation of the Fall and modern science.
Douglas addresses this issue head on. He shows how
Paul, following the traditions of his time, used
typology and parallelisms as part of his interpretive
framework. On the pertinent discussion in Romans 5
Douglas states:
Here (as well as in 1 Corinthians 15) Paul
draws the parallel between the first Adam and
the last Adam, Jesus, because he saw symmetry
between the two. Notice, though, that the
validity of Christ’s work for all is not stated to
be dependent on sin coming through one man,
as is often construed. Paul’s intention was to
relate this brand new theological doctrine to
something that was familiar to them: if they
could see sin coming into the world through one
man, they should be able to accept that one man
could bring life to all. The symmetry he saw
between the two was no less valid for one of the
characters being non-historical.
Later Douglas sums it up with this:
In short, it doesn’t matter whether Paul
believed an historical figure named Adam
literally fell and passed death down to all his
descendants in some genetic or federal fashion
through resultant “original sin”. Christ’s work
was not dependent on the sin of one man alone:
every man’s sin necessitates Christ’s work.
I can’t possibly do justice to Douglas’s arguments in
this post. If you want a more detailed account, I
encourage you to visit his blog. I can’t say I’m
completely convinced by his argument, but it has
given me much food for thought.
Concluding Thoughts
Understanding the Fall is difficult, and it is likely that
there will be much disagreement within the
Evangelical community on how the theology can be
reconciled with modern science. What we can agree
on is the following:
A) The Fall, whatever it is, and whenever it
happened, occurred in the distant past. No amount of
theological teeth gnashing will change what has
happened.
B) the "sting of death" that resulted from the Fall has
been vanquished by Christ's death on the cross. So
theological teeth gnashing seems somewhat
inappropriate. (Why worry about losing the shutout,
we won the game!).
C) Our hope that sin and death will not only be
vanquished, but will also be destroyed, is assured.
The Fall happened but we need no longer worry
about "falling". We can say with Jude:
To him who is able to keep you from falling
and to present you before his glorious presence
without fault and with great joy—
to the only God our Savior
be glory, majesty, power and authority,
through Jesus Christ our Lord,
before all ages, now and forevermore!
IV. Evolution: Necessary for the
Continuation of Life
Published July 27, 2008
One of the common objections to evolution put
forward by Christians is that:
A) The evolutionary process is dependent on death
and
B) God would never use a process dependent on evil
to accomplish his purposes
Now B) is a theological statement that can be
disputed on many levels (eg. equating death with
evil, or implying that God can not utilize bad
situations for his purposes – one of the major themes
of the bible clearly contradicts this implication eg.
enslavement of Joseph, death of Christ). However, it
is statement A) that I’d like to address here.
The Problem is Limited Resources
Paradigms on Pilgrimage is a book written by
paleontologist Stephen Godfrey and Baptist minister
Christopher Smith. Both are former YEC advocates
who now advocate an evolutionary creationist
position. In his chapter on dealing with the
theological implications of evolution, Smith directly
addresses claim A) above. It is not primarily
evolutionary mechanisms like genetic mutations, or
even natural selection, which is the problem. It is in
fact, the limited amount of resources available to
God’s creatures.
It is true that new characteristics take root in a
population, under circumstances where they
confer some survival advantage, as organisms
31
 with those characteristics displace those
without them. But the effective cause of the
demise of the organisms without the new
characteristics is not the emergence of these
characteristics themselves, through genetic
variation, but rather the availability of only
limited resources for the population as a whole.
When resources are abundant, a greater range
of organisms will survive, even those with less
of a survival advantage. And finite resources
pose just as great a theological problem for the
[old or young earth] creationist. (page 167)
Evolutionary Mechanisms: A Creative Tool
With respect to the Fall and death in God’s good
creation, I am not going to deal with the many
(theological & scientific) arguments against young
earth creationism (A very interesting paper somewhat
related is Randy Isaac’s The Chronology of the Fall).
What should be noted is that an OEC position has the
exact same theological challenges as an EC position
with regards to physical death before the fall, and the
fact that pain, death, and extinction have been going
on for a very, very long time. In many ways an EC
position is much easier to defend; the evolutionary
mechanism of genetic variation is an excellent
strategy for the continuation of life in a changing
environment.
Far from being dependent on death, the
evolutionary process as seen in the fossil record
is actually the antidote to death. If new species
were not formed by the process of genetic
variation, there would be no survivors when
environmental conditions did change and
existing species proved so poorly adapted to the
new conditions that they became extinct. So
death is not necessary for evolution, but
evolution has been necessary for the
continuation of life. (pages 167 and 168 –
emphasis mine)
Evolution is not dependent on death and extinction;
rather, given the world we have, it is the antidote to
death and extinction. In the world God has created,
evolutionary mechanisms enable the continuation of
life. They are one of the tools God uses to
accomplish his purposes.
V. Does Evolution lead to Moral
Relativism? Making the
Bogeyman even Scarier.
Published October 17, 2007
Most bogeymen are dispatched well before childhood
ends. However, for many evangelicals, the Evolution
Bogeyman lasts much longer. Much like children
nervously peaking under the bed each morning, many
evangelical students (and their parents!) scan
nervously through the course outline prior to
stepping tentatively into that first high school or
university biology classroom. Many, like I did
myself, use various avoidance strategies. However,
these strategies only help to solidify and strengthen
the perceived threat.
When I stumbled across David Hill’s article “Who’s
afraid of Biology 101?” I was optimistic that he
would directly address the evangelical tendency to be
intimidated by evolution. However, my optimism
evaporated when I read the opening paragraph:
Students from Christian homes are often
warned about the dangers of secular lifestyles
in college, especially those relativistic
worldviews rooted in humanism and
evolutionary theory. Many parents sending
their kids off to school are not only concerned
with the temptations of the social atmosphere,
but they also fear the potentially more
damaging outcome from an intellectual culture
hostile to Biblically-based perspectives.
Alarm bells start ringing any time I see “relativistic
worldview” and “evolutionary theory” lumped
together. On very rare occasions an author can
astutely work through the various meanings of each
of these phrases, show how they are related (or not
related), and provide some wise guidance on how
these systems or ideas should be approached by a
Christian. Most of the time however, an author
simply conflates the terms, pontificates on their
evilness, and moves on to strategies for combating
them. Although Hill’s tone is respectful and
pontification is minimal, his approach is much closer
to the latter.
A) Do not Avoid Science
First the positive. Hill does not say Christians should
avoid learning about evolution. He acknowledges
that Christians should examine modern scientific
32
explanations, including biological evolution. Taking
biology 101 will allow Christian students to
“… walk away four months later appreciating
modern scientific theories about the universe
and have their faith strengthened because they
understand this conflict more deeply”.
Although I strongly disagree with the implication that
evolution and faith are inherently in conflict, or that
the majority of those teaching it are attacking a
biblical worldview, I commend his advice to
Christians that they seek to understand modern ideas
and theories, even ideas and theories that are in
conflict with a biblical worldview or are taught by
those biased against a biblical worldview. As both
Jesus and the apostle Paul demonstrated, we need to
directly engage our culture, not run from it. And to
properly engage, we need to first listen & understand.
B) Natural Selection and its Relationship
to Moral Relativism
However, Hill’s second conclusion that we need to
be wary of an evolutionary paradigm because “it
results in a morally relativistic worldview” is
completely unsupported in the essay (and I believe
unsupportable). He states:
An evolutionary paradigm describing the result
of competition and environmental stress within
nature can be stated very simply: the fit survive,
mutations arise and new species arrive.
According to this mode of thought, humans are
no exception to this rule, being an ordinary
product of the machinery of natural selection,
as much as daffodils, flounders, or pigeons.
This indifference and utter accidentalness in the
origination of living things is unnerving. It
proposes that everything is relative, that
nothing under the sun — least of all the human
race — is special in any way.
I have commented before that humanity’s
connectedness to all other life on planet earth does
not contradict the fact that we are created in the
image of God. What needs to be addressed is the
contention that the mechanism of natural selection
somehow leads to moral relativism. Briefly, the
acceptance of natural selection should not lead us to
accept moral relativism since first, it acts on
populations not individuals, and second, it is
descriptive not prescriptive.
1. Populations, not Individuals
Natural selection is a mechanism that operates on
populations, not on individual organisms. (See here).
Individual orchids, sheep, and hominids do not
evolve – populations of orchids, sheep and hominids
evolve over time (generally very long periods of
time). Natural selection is unrelated to individuals or
their choices. In fact, maybe a better term for natural
selection is environmental sorting of heredity as
indicated here.
2. Descriptive, not Prescriptive
Natural selection is an explanation for how things
have changed over time. It is thus descriptive and is
not meant to be prescriptive. The theory explains the
paleontological, genetic, and morphological data, but
does not in any way provide guidance on how
humanity should act in the future. As Kyle Maxwell
states:
The theory of evolution is merely an account of
the mechanisms God has used to create us. It
can no more be a guide to our moral choices
than Newton's laws of motion, the laws of
thermodynamics, or Boyle's law. Bear in mind,
by the way, that scientific laws (of which
evolution is one) are descriptive, not
prescriptive or normative. That means that
scientific laws describe what DOES happen in
the universe; they do not tell you what moral
choices to make. Many persons make a mistake
here by confusing the different meanings of the
word law. For example, they'll think that the
law of gravity "punishes" a person for stepping
off a cliff. That is not so. The law of gravity
describes how an object moves in a
gravitational field. The choice of how and
where you place yourself in such a field is up to
you. (Quoted from here - scroll to the 3rd post
at the bottom).
C) A Christian Paradigm
Hill might include more than just the scientific
evidence for natural selection in his “simple”
definition of “an evolutionary paradigm” ; it is not
clear from his essay. But based on his definition, the
conclusion he reaches is not warranted. It is true that
some paradigms might lead to moral relativism, even
paradigms near and dear to the hearts of many
evangelicals. One could try to make the argument
that the economic theory of capitalism leads to moral
relativism (“survival of the fittest” is certainly more
applicable here than in biological evolution) or that
the political theory of democracy leads to moral
33
relativism, but both of those statements are obviously
simplistic and can be debated. However, the
contention that capitalism and/or democracy leads to
moral relativism is easier to defend than the claim
that natural selection leads to moral relativism. Both
capitalism and democracy are at least partly
prescriptive; natural selection (and the science of
biological evolution) is purely descriptive.
In one sense Hill is right. Making an Evolutionary
Paradigm (however it is defined) foundational for
defining truth, making choices, and finding purpose
is unacceptable for Christians. Our primary paradigm
must be Christ-centered and biblically guided. If this
approach is trumped by any other paradigm, whether
a Democratic Paradigm, a Capitalist Paradigm, or an
Evolutionary Paradigm, we have committed idolatry.
Christians can of course hold democratic political
ideas, capitalistic economic ideas, and evolutionary
scientific ideas, but these ideas need to be secondary
to, informed by, and measured against our primary
paradigm, which is faith in Jesus Christ.
D) Still Promoting Fear of the Bogeyman
Although the title of Hill’s article seems to suggest
that evangelicals should not fear evolution, I believe
his argument will only make things worse. The
impression one is given is that accepting the evidence
for biological evolution inevitability leads to an
evolutionary paradigm that is itself equivalent to
moral relativism. Since moral relativism is
incompatible with the Christian faith, the message is
really “learn about the scientific ‘theory’ of evolution
but hold your breath so that you don’t inhale its toxic
ramifications”. This is equivalent to giving your
fearful 6-year old a loaded gun when going to bed.
Someone might get hurt, but it sure won’t be the
bogeyman.
VI. Et Tu Tony? A Critique of
Campolo’s attack on
"Darwinism"
Published February 10, 2008
Tony Campolo is a prophetic voice in the
Evangelical community, prophetic in the sense of the
ancient Hebrew prophets who challenged the
Israelites to care for the poor and to "act justly, to
love mercy, and to walk humbly with their God" –
not prophetic in the modern sense like, for example,
the quackery of Pat Robertson or the wacky
“prophecies” of Oral Roberts. And like the Hebrew
prophets, Campolo’s voice is often unwelcome in
large parts of the religious community in which he
participates. I don’t always agree with what Campolo
says (for example his “red-letter Christians” initiative
- see a good critique here on John Stackhouse’s blog)
but he is inspiring and a man of integrity.
So it is sad to see Campolo miss the mark so badly in
his recent op-ed in the Philadelphia Inquirer. In an
article entitled The Real Danger in Darwin is not
Evolution, but Racism (HT: Ed Darrell) he lashes out
at … well, possibly the science of biological
evolution, possibly an ill-defined metaphysic of
“Darwinism”, or maybe even Charles Darwin himself
– the focus of his attack is unclear. I suspect that
Campolo wanted to highlight that all of humanity
enjoys a special place in God’s creation, and that
ideas that deny this can be dangerous. It is
commendable that Campolo strongly defends this
important truth about human dignity. However, in my
opinion, his argument is presented so badly that it
probably does more damage than good.
A) Positive Aspects of the Argument
First the positive: In the past (for example here) (HT:
Stephen Matheson), Campolo has parroted standard
anti-evolutionist claims that “Evolution is just a
theory”. However, in the current op-ed he does not
question the scientific evidence for biological
evolution, and even states that “in terms of science,
Darwin’s account may be solid indeed”. Secondly, he
states, in opposition to YEC claims, that “the
development of biological organisms over eons of
time really does not pose the great threat to the
dignity of our humanity”. Thus he is not insisting on
a rigorously literal interpretation of scripture, an
interpretation that itself can be damaging to the
Christian faith. Finally, he concludes that there is an
“infinite qualitative difference” between humans and
that rest of creation. These are all great points, and
could have been constructed into a useful argument
against some of the unwarranted philosophical
extrapolations to evolutionary theory being passed
off as science (for example, the insistence that the
biological connectness of humanity to other forms of
life implies that we are nothing more than “gene
machines”).
34
B) An Argument Gone Astray
Campolo, however, does not build a useful argument.
Instead he repeats some of the most ill-informed and
inaccurate anti-evolutionist claims. These include:
1. Darwin was a racist: Campolo claims that
Darwin’s ideas are dangerous because they promote
and support racism. This is simply not true. Campolo
shows he grossly misunderstands Darwin by
claiming that they do. At a minimum, Darwin was no
more racist than most Christian Victorians, and as
several commentators have shown, (see here, here,
here, and here) he personally opposed racism and
slavery.
2. Let only the strong survive: Campolo claims that
Darwin wanted to abandon society’s weak. He states:
Darwin even argued that advanced societies
should not waste time and money on caring for
the mentally ill, or those with birth defects. To
him, these unfit members of our species ought
not to survive.
This is also false. These are the ideas of Herbert
Spencer, not Darwin. Spencer took Darwin’s
descriptive biological theory and created a
prescriptive theory for human societies called Social
Darwinism. (For a good overview from a Christian
perspective on Social Darwinism and other
extrapolations of Darwin’s ideas, see Evolution:
From Creation to New Creation pages 51-64)
3. Darwin’s theories were complicit in the rise of
Nazism: As Ted Davis has noted (HT: David), the
relationship between Darwinism and Nazism is
complex, and there is indeed some connection.
However, the responsibility for this connection
should not be laid on Darwin, nor should biological
evolution be rejected because of Hitler’s madness. To
paint Darwin and biological evolution with this brush
is ludicrous. In fact, it may be just as accurate to say
that Christian ideas were complicit in the rise of
slavery and racism in the American south. Depending
on your definition of Christian, and what facts you
cherry-pick from history, this could well be true.
However, slavery and racism should never be blamed
on Christ or the Christian gospel. This too is
ludicrous.
C) A Failure to Define this “Darwinism”
that is so dangerous
I believe the central flaw in Campolo’s article is that
he attempts to define “the real dangers of
Darwinism” without in fact defining what he means
by Darwinism – a word that can convey such a broad
range of ideas that it has become almost useless
except as a pejorative. Does Campolo mean Darwin’s
writings? Does he mean the main scientific theories
Darwin proposed (descent with modification through
natural selection), or possibly the modern
evolutionary synthesis that includes Mendelian
genetics as well as other modifications to Darwin’s
theories? Does he mean the extrapolations, and
sometimes dramatic distortions, of Darwin’s theories
outside of the field of biology (eg. Social Darwinism,
Eugenics, and Evolutionary Psychology)? Or is he
focusing his criticism on the (often atheistic)
ideologies that claim all knowledge should be viewed
through an evolutionary paradigm?
If by Darwinism Campolo means the latter of these
options, then I would agree with his assertion that
Darwinism can be dangerous. However, I’m sure that
many (probably most) of his readers will interpret his
use of Darwinism to be the scientific theory of
biological evolution. And for this definition,
Campolo’s claim is wrong. As I’ve discussed
previously, there are no ethical implications to the
scientific theory of biological evolution. It is a very
good model for explaining the development of life on
earth, but it provides no moral guidance (good or
bad) for future human decisions.
It is important for Christians, as Ted Davis notes, to
“Do one's best to separate science as science from
science as grand metaphysical program”. (Allan
Harvey’s proposal, that includes six different
definitions for evolution and which I discussed here,
makes the same point). We do not need to fear
science. We should however, be leery when scientific
theories are woven into grand meta-narratives that
claim to explain the really big questions. These are
questions that science is just not able to answer.
D) Conclusion
I have the utmost respect for Tony Campolo. His
challenge to Evangelicals to take seriously our
responsibility to the poor is sorely needed. We
should all emulate his passion for defending the
dignity of humanity, whether from racism or a denial
of human spiritual uniqueness. But I believe his
attack on Darwinism will be counterproductive. The
easily refutable pieces of his argument may allow
many to feel justified in also rejecting his implied
conclusion: That humanity is created in the Image of
God. More importantly, choosing between the “how”
of human creation (biological evolution) and the
“why” of human creation (to be the Image of God) is
a false dichotomy. We are the Image because God
35
declared it to be so, not because of how we were
created. That is why each and every human being is
important.
Addendum
Another addendum. I guess I have a defective
blogging gene. I had seen Campolo’s original piece a
couple days after it came out but didn’t find the time
to put my thoughts together. Actually, that probably
turned out for the better. Stephen Matheson provided
his own reaction, and a very interesting discussion
ensued between him and David Opderbeck. Reading
this (unfortunately after the discussion was over)
helped clarify my own thinking. So thanks guys for
the provocative (and spirited) discussion.
36
F) Evolution: Personal Choices and Implications for Evangelicals
Given the antagonism towards evolution within the Evangelical community, the personal choices
regarding the acceptance of evolution can be difficult and the personal implications significant. The
following three posts discuss these choices. The first examines reasons why many Evangelicals have
come to accept biological evolution as not only scientific truth, but a truth compatible with orthodox
Christianity. The second post recounts the challenges biologist Richard Colling faced at his Evangelical
institution, and comments on the implications for other scientists in similar situations. The third post
discusses the implications of publicly supporting evolution in an Evangelical church setting.

community, #1 and #2 are certainly important. Most

I. Factors involved in the shift to
Evolutionary Creationism: My
Story and Yours
Published May 4, 2008
A small but growing number of Evangelicals have
embraced an Evolutionary Creationist (EC) view of
origins. This is a significant paradigm shift for an
Evangelical and can be a difficult and extended
process. Since support for EC within the Evangelical
community is rare, and direct opposition to EC is
prevalent, why do Evangelicals launch into this
journey in the first place? And why do they end up
holding onto their faith?
Important Factors in the Paradigm Shift
I think there are 6 factors involved in the paradigm
shift. The factors in this list do not necessarily occur
sequentially, not all are relevant for all Evangelicals
making this journey, and the importance of each will
vary from one person to the next. However, I believe
each is an important part of the process in a majority
of cases. These factors include:
1. A realization that some of the “simple” traditional
claims aren’t so simple
2. A loss of trust in Evangelical leadership that
dogmatically defend untenable ideas.
3. An evaluation of the scientific evidence for
evolution
4. A broad examination of biblical hermeneutics and
Christian theology
5. The testimony of thoughtful Evangelical Christians
who accept the theory of evolution.
6. An explanation of #3 and/or #4 from an EC
viewpoint (someone in #5).
For those of us that grew up in an Evangelical
evangelicals (outside of the fundamentalist fringe)
grapple with #1 at some time, usually during or prior
to young adulthood. Many also rethink earlier
assumptions because of #2. For example, hearing
YEC leadership claims that the earth is only 6000
years old in the face of massive & elementary
evidence to the contrary. If these leaders are so
wrong about the age of the earth (and emphatically
dogmatic in their wrongness), could they be just as
wrong about evolution?
#3 is the most obvious factor, and certainly important
for those in pursuing science in higher education. But
I doubt it is the most significant factor in many other
cases. #4 is an important factor for those pursuing
degrees in theology or biblical studies, and while
rethinking some of the rigid traditional hermeneutic
methods is necessary for an EC viewpoint, it is
hardly sufficient. Anyone who states that the bible
provides positive support for evolutionary science is
almost certainly twisting scripture.
Key Factors: The Testimony and of other
Evolutionary Creationists
I suspect, however, that #5 and #6 are the most
significant factors for the majority of Evangelicals
that end up in the EC camp. #1 and #2 may be
important first steps, but these do not necessarily lead
to an EC position on origins. A comprehensive study
of #3 and #4 may be sufficient but I suspect very few
Evangelicals have the time, energy, and focus to 1)
thoroughly investigate the evidence from biology,
geology, genetics, paleontology, anthropology and
related scientific disciplines and 2) navigate the maze
of ANE cultural history, ancient Hebrew linguistics,
Christian Theology, Biblical Studies, and OT
exegesis. For most of us raised in a black-and-white
evolution-is-evil environment, it is only after healthy
doses of #5 and #6 that we make that final step into
the EC camp with our Evangelical faith unscathed.

37
My Own Story
How did these factors play out for me personally? #1
and #2 brought me to a certain point, and a
smattering of #4 during my university years brought
me further along this path. However, I was still stuck
in an ignore-the-issue anti-evolutionist position for
many years. Interestingly, I did get a healthy dose of
#5 working at a Christian camp as a teenager, but I
wrote the friend off as both nuts and immature-in-
the-faith.
Only recently (as I explained in my introductory
post), did I revisit the issue of the interaction of
evolutionary science and faith. And when I did
revisit it, #6 was the critical factor, particularly
Darrel Falk’s book Coming to Peace with Science. It
was Falk’s personal story of faith, a story he
provided prior to his summary of the evidence for
biological evolution, which clinched it for me. I
started the book conflicted about evolutionary
claims; I finished the book comfortable with an
acceptance of evolution. Even though #3 and #4 were
still only beginning (and are, even now, works in
progress), my paradigm had already shifted – not
away from creationism, but towards a much different
creationism.
Your Stories
I’m interested in hearing the stories of others who
have travelled this journey. In particular, I am
interested to know which factors were most
important for you. Which ones were key to the shift
in your own paradigm? Was it a relatively simple
progression, or more disjointed like my own? Were
there other factors involved that are not covered in
the list above?
II. When the Acceptance of
Biological Evolution has Personal
or Professional Repercussions
Published September 21, 2007
Grappling with the implications of biological
evolution can be a difficult theological challenge.
However, for most of us, it doesn’t directly affect our
personal or professional lives. For others though, the
impact is much more direct. For pastors in
Evangelical churches, or for faculty in Christian
academic institutions, coming to a personal
understanding of the coherence of evolution and faith
may be the easy part. Much more difficult is dealing
with the aftermath when these personal
understandings become public. Richard Colling, a
long time biology professor at Olivet Nazarene
University (ONU), discovered this the hard way.
Richard Colling’s Story
A couple of years ago Colling was one of several
Evangelical biologists that published books
supportive of the integration of evolutionary science
and the Christian faith. His book Random Designer
addressed the common misconception that the chance
and randomness inherent in evolution are somehow
competitors to God. The Book:
“… explains that the randomness and chaos
which play such central roles in our physical
existence are actually creative. The Creator
simply taps these random physical processes to
accomplish His higher goal – the creation of
human beings capable of consciously
perceiving Him”
Almost from the launch of his book, Colling faced
hostility from those within the Church of the
Nazarene community with a YEC perspective. Last
year, it appears that several members of the
university board attempted to orchestrate his firing.
Although unsuccessful, they were able to convince
the university President that some action was needed.
So this fall, as reported in the Sept 17 issue of
Newsweek, Colling was told he could no longer
teach the introductory biology course at ONU. As
well, his book was removed from the reading lists of
all ONU courses.
What does this mean for ONU?
From the outside, it is easy to conclude that ONU, in
the face of an angry “fundamentalist” contingent
within the Church of the Nazarene, is abandoning
Colling. Some close to the situation do not see it this
way, and view it as a short term compromise to
“make peace” between the various factions. (For
example, see ONU faculty member Charles
Carrigan’s comments here and here). I think we
should be careful not to judge the ONU president
given that he had to make a very, very difficult
decision. As well, (as indicated by Carrigan's
comments above) there are probably other factors
and complexities to the situation that are not being
revealed publicly. Whatever the case, Colling is
deeply disappointed and hurt by what has happened.
He has commented publically in several blogs, for
example here and here. He is also wary of additional
repercussions (see his comments at the end of this
38
very LONG thread).
What I find most fascinating about this incident is
that neither the Church of the Nazarene, nor ONU,
takes an official stand against evolution. Colling is
not being disciplined for teaching something contrary
to institution policy or church doctrine. In essence, he
is being moved “out of the public eye” to placate
some very powerful constituents within ONU and the
Church of the Nazarene. The course curriculum at
ONU has not changed and still includes content on
biological evolution. Other ONU faculty that teach
and strongly support evolution are not affected (at
least for now). So this looks like a strategic retreat for
ONU, and not a hard right turn to antievolutionism.
Implications for other Scientists in Evangelical
Institutions
The pertinent question for me is this: If Richard
Colling faces these challenges in a Christian
environment where his colleagues and administration
largely agree with his views and are predisposed to
support him, should scientists in other Evangelical
institutions less friendly to biological evolution be
nervous of the increasingly militant antievolutionist
lobby within Evangelicalism? If ONU faces this
difficulty, isn’t the risk even higher for individuals
and institutions that belong to denominations that
take explicit stands against evolution? What about
theologians and biblical studies faculty that discuss
the interaction between modern evolutionary theory
and theology or biblical interpretation? What if they
do not believe this interaction is in inherent conflict?
Will they also face repercussions?
In non-academic environments, the problem may be
even more difficult for Evangelicals that have come
to peace with evolution. I suspect that many pastors
and other local church leaders who are comfortable
with the integration of biological evolution and the
Christian faith have chosen to remain silent on the
topic. I’m sure this silence can be justified as a way
of promoting church unity since, for the vast majority
of Christians, an understanding of biological or
human origins is not necessarily relevant to their
daily participation in the kingdom of Christ.
However, how long should they remain silent? As I
posted previously, antievolutionism can be
dangerous, and there are times when silence is not
the best option. What should these leaders do in this
situation when they know that saying anything can
have huge personal implications?
Tough Decisions. Choices that are Vital for the
Future of Evangelicalism
These are tough, gut wrenching personal decisions.
But these are not only personal decisions. I strongly
believe these are decisions that are important for the
collective Evangelical church. As Colling comments
in this post:
I believe that it is a matter of when, not if, the
evolutionary paradigm WILL be integrated into
the evangelical Christian theology. If not, the
Christian faith will be relegated to cultural
obsolescence. With the genetic data derived
from the human genome project and other
sources, the evolutionary connectedness of life
on earth can no longer be denied. Therefore to
build the foundation of the Christian faith on
opposition to evolution is not only silly, it is
suicide for the long-term viability and
credibility of the faith.
Well said Richard, well said.
I too believe that, in time, this integration will
happen. It is unfortunate that in the meantime
Colling, and others that promote the integrity of
science along with the integrity of scripture, need to
suffer personal and/or professional damage because
of their commitment to that integrity.
III. Would your Church allow
you to Publicly Support
Evolution?
Published March 2, 2008
Last September I commented on biologist Richard
Colling’s plight at ONU instigated by his public
support for biological evolution. I suspect this type of
story will become more prevalent in the next several
years since although Evangelical biologists largely
support evolution, it is still very rare for Evangelical
church or ministry leaders to publicly pronounce
their acceptance of the scientific theory. These
scientists represent the vanguard in attempting to
persuade the broader Evangelical church that peace
with evolution is possible and preferable, but, as in
most theaters of war, being a peacemaker can be a
very dangerous assignment.
Visiting a Baptist Monk
I really enjoy Michael Spencer’s Internet Monk blog.
His “dispatches from the Post-Evangelical
Wilderness” are always direct, engaging, thought
provoking, and spiritually challenging. I have said in
39
the past that I prefer to keep the moniker Evangelical I’d be fired from my job as Bible teacher,
rather than abandon it for “Post-Evangelical” as chapel preacher and campus minister.
Spencer does. However, after reading his blog for a Immediately.
while, I believe his vision and hope for the Post-
Not really good incentive to investigate evolution
Evangelical church appears similar to my own for the
further – particularly since it is clearly not a central
Evangelical church, so maybe our disagreement is
issue to his ministry. Frankly, I don’t blame him for
simply semantic.
not pursuing this matter any further.
Spencer certainly does not fit the stereotypical image
A PCA Minister on Evolution: Risky Comments
of a Southern Baptist Bible teacher. I highly doubt
his views on inerrancy are supported by many SBC
The Keller situation that Spencer mentions above is
members, and it seems to get him into trouble
also interesting in this context. In his new book “The
occasionally. And although even moderate SBC
Reason for God” Keller does provide qualified
churches like Saddleback officially support Young
support for a Theistic Evolution position (at least
Earth Creationism, Spencer emphatically states that
asserting that it is within the bounds of orthodoxy).
he does not. He defends a high view of scripture, but
(See: Tim Challies book review here, this article in
also understands what the Bible is, and what it is not.
First Things, and this interview in Newsweek for
He comments that:
details). Keller is a very influential pastor in the
Ever since I read Conrad Hyers’ The Meaning
Presbyterian Church of America (PCA), a
of Creation and realized that the Bible wasn’t a
conservative Presbyterian denomination whose
science book and its inspiration wasn’t involved
Creation statement (HT: BTF) includes this
in the views of science in ancient cultures, I’ve
paragraph on the initial chapters of Genesis:
not lost much sleep over the relationship of
religion and science.
“In these chapters we find the record of God’s
An SBC Minister on Evolution: No Comment? creation of the heavens and the earth* ex
nihilo*; of the special creation of Adam and
Although Spencer is comfortable with an old earth, it Eve as actual human beings, the parents of all
appears he does not take a strong public position on humanity (hence they are not the products of
evolution (either for or against). Undoubtedly, one evolution from lower forms of life).”
reason for this is that the science / faith dialogue is
Now, as Rich Blinne notes, the above report was
not a priority for him. However, it is unlikely that he
submitted by a non-binding advisory group within
will ever publicly support evolution – at least if he
the PCA, and so it cannot necessarily be used to
wants to continue with his current employment. In a
censure Tim Keller. Still it is clear that Keller, with
post about Tim Keller’s support of Theistic Evolution
his qualified support of evolution, is offside with the
(TE), Spencer comments on how significant Keller’s
majority within his own denomination and is likely
support of TE would be within the Evangelical
taking some personal risk by doing so.
community. (Note: the post was eventually pulled
because of ambiguity over whether Keller actually
It is heartening to see Evangelical church leaders like
supports TE). Spencer then asks some great questions
Keller reject the Evangelical / Evolution conflict
(primarily to Christian leaders like himself):
thesis. We need more leaders with his integrity and
stature speaking out. It requires courage and wisdom,
For those of you who are theistic evolutionists
courage for reasons obvious to anyone familiar with
(or might possibly be if you knew what you
Evangelical culture, wisdom since speaking out can
believed), could you openly announce your
potentially cause more damage than good. Not every
belief in theistic evolution in your setting?
church leader is in a situation where this type of
Especially in your church? your sermon? your
public announcement is possible or advisable.
college or seminary class (as student or
teacher)? your ordination council? your session
Evangelical Grass-roots and Evolution
or church board? your ministry employment?
He then provides, with typical directness, what would The situation is similar for many grass-roots
happen if one day he announced his belief in TE: Evangelicals. Personally, I’m fortunate that our
family is involved with an Evangelical Anglican
Church (with a heavy emphasis on the Evangelical)
in which God’s method of creation is a non-issue –

40
you won’t see us participating in Evolution Sunday
but neither will you hear a sermon condemning
modern scientific theories of the development of life.
So for me there is little personal risk in discussing my
views in the church. However, most Evangelicals
grappling with the implications of an evolving
creation are not so fortunate. I suspect many would
lose whatever position they held in their church,
maybe even their membership, if they publicly stated
their acceptance of evolution. Charges of heresy and
abandonment of the gospel would inevitably strain
friendships and family relationships. For many, the
price would be very high.
What Personal Ramifications?
I’m interested in hearing other personal perspectives
on this problem. What would the ramifications be in
your church if you stated your support for evolution?
Are these ramifications clearly spelled out in your
church charter or membership requirements? Or is
opposition to evolution an unwritten rule
unanimously accepted by all? How would support for
evolution impact your relationship with your family
or other Christian friends? How would it affect your
participation in parachurch Christian ministries or
services? Could you continue working in these
organizations?
An even more significant question: For those of you
that have revealed your acceptance of evolution, was
it really worth it? Would you do it again, or would
you choose to remain silent if given the choice to
start over?
41
G) The State of the Dialogue and a Call to Action

The state of the dialogue on evolution within Evangelicalism has changed radically in the last decade. As
the first post in the section below notes, there are now a plethora of resources that promote the
compatibility of evolution and an evangelical expression of the Christian faith. Those of us that accept
this compatibility should be promoting these resources within our communities. More importantly
however, as stated in the second post, we need to reclaim the concept of “creation” (a term sullied by
certain creationists), and proclaim the relevance of our Creator God to our modern and post-modern
world. The third post suggests that we need to promote a positive relationship between science and faith
in our Evangelical communities, and introduces the topic of “An Evangelical Statement on Evolution”, a
manifesto I believe could be very positive step to healing the wounds in our community.

Why did Evangelicals have to wait so long to receive

I. Ten Books and what they mean this type of book? Why did this mini-explosion of
books occur now? Why is the author profile for all
for Evolutionary Creationism these books nearly identical (they are almost all
Published July 8th, 2008 scientists)? Allow me to provide my own
speculations.
Quick Quiz. How many books do you think possess
all of the following characteristics? What this Tells Me
1. Evolutionary Creationism (EC) is no longer a
 Promotes the compatibility between radical fringe position within the Evangelical
biological evolution and an Evangelical community. We have a dozen well-educated
expression of the Christian faith Evangelicals who defend both Christian and
 Is a non-academic work targeted at a scientific orthodoxy, and who have invested the time
popular reading level and energy to communicate science/faith
compatibility to the typical Evangelical in the pew.
 Was published in North America prior to
The scholarly dialogue phase regarding the scientific
2003
merits of biological evolution within the mainstream
To the best of my knowledge, the right answer is
evangelical scientific community may be practically
none. A big fat zero. Zilch. As of 5 years ago, you
complete; we are now in a phase where this
could not find a single popular-level work by an
community is communicating their (majority?)
North American Evangelical Christian which
consensus to their Christian brothers and sisters who
dissented from the evolution / Christian faith conflict
are less comfortable with scientific discussions.
thesis. (Note: There were some published in Europe).
Fast-forward 5 years. As of June 2008, North
2. This communication to the masses is however,
American Evangelicals have at least 10 books that
very, very recent. Even 10 years ago, North
meet the above characteristics. They are as follows:
American Evangelicals would have had a tough time
finding any popular level discussion that was even
The Ten Books
sympathetic to an EC view, let alone one that actively
1. Richard Colling, Random Designer (2004)
promoted it. Now Evangelicals can pick and choose
2. Darrel Falk, Coming to Peace with Science (2004)
among several options. So, to those EC’s that are
3. David Wilcox, God and Evolution (2004)
frustrated with the pace of the acceptance of EC ideas
4. Stephen Godfrey and Christopher Smith,
I say: “Please be patient, we have only started to get
Paradigms on Pilgrimage (2005)
this message out.”
5. Owen Gingerich, God’s Universe (2006)
6. Francis Collins, The Language of God (2007)
3. Notwithstanding this consensus among
7. Gordon Glover, Beyond the Firmament (2007)
Evangelical scientists, there is a huge gap within the
8. Deborah and Loren Haarsma, Origins (2007)
Evangelical academic community. (See also the
9. Karl Giberson, Saving Darwin (2008)
historical perspective & future directions post by Ted
10. Denis Lamoureux, Evolutionary Creation (2008)
Davis). Whereas the discussion among evangelical

42
scientists is relatively mature, the discussion among
biblical scholars is just beginning. As to Evangelical
theologians, do they even realize that there is a
discussion?
What we need to do
1. The time is past for lamenting the lack of sound
scientific resources on the topic of biological
evolution from a distinctly Evangelical perspective.
We probably have all that we really need. What we
should be doing is promoting the resources that are
already available.
2. Given that this reconciliation within the
Evangelical community is so recent, and that the past
conflict was so harsh, those of us that are
comfortable with an EC perspective need to exhibit a
spirit of understanding, patience and love when
discussing these issues with other Evangelicals (see
also particularly Richard Colling’s recent post on this
topic).
3. Finally, we need to do something to wake up the
Evangelical theological community. As I have said in
the past, it is not sufficient for theologians to explain
historic theological approaches that may have been
appropriate for Christians in ages past. For the good
of our faith we also need approaches that make sense
of our modern and post-modern world. And the
relationship between science and faith (and evolution
& faith in particular) is one of the most salient issues
causing angst among modern & post-modern
Evangelicals.
II. Reclaiming and Proclaiming
Creation
Published August 2, 2007
All Christians believe in creation – including those
like myself who accept biological evolution as a
mechanism employed by the creator. Thus you could
argue that all Christians are creationists.
Unfortunately, “creationist” has taken on
connotations that make it an embarrassing label. In
modern parlance it means not only “belief in a caring
creator” as the historic creeds confirm, but also
assent to specific methods and timings on how God
realized his purposes, methods and timings that are
little more than nonsense when viewed in the light of
modern scientific evidence. I think I can appreciate
the turmoil Egyptian Christians must have endured
during the crusades when European “Christians”
raped and pillaged their way through the Holy Land.
I’m sure that many of these Egyptian Christians tried
desperately to convince their Muslim neighbors that
the title “Christian” should not be associated with the
viscous, un-Christian acts of the crusaders. And I’m
sure they had just as much trouble defending Christ
because of Christians as we have in defending
creation because of creationists.
Reclaiming Creation
Reclaiming creation will be difficult. But it is an
essential part of the gospel. Even as Christians should
never abandon Christ when other Christians bring the
name of Christ into disrepute, neither should we be
ashamed of creation simply because certain forms of
creationism make untenable claims based on flawed
interpretations of scripture. As I posted earlier,
combating this type of creationism is important
because it is dangerous. A more urgent task,
however, is communicating God’s positive message
of creation to a world that desperately needs to hear
it. For there is purpose in creation, there is ultimate
meaning.
Creation is the Central Idea …
For many of us, biological evolution is fascinating,
but it is not the most important aspect of the origins
discussion. Creation is the central truth. Genesis is
very clear about who was responsible for bringing
forth life on earth – it was God. Out of nothingness, a
good creation was brought into being. The pinnacle
of this good work was humanity, which was created
in the image of God. And humanity was entrusted
with the stewardship and care of creation.
Genesis also states that a central problem is human
sin. Because of this sin, a gulf developed in
humanity’s relationship with God. God could no
longer enjoy communion with those he created in his
own image, since the image was severely marred.
The story of the destructiveness of this sin and the
pain caused by this sin is developed throughout the
rest of scripture. Genesis also states that the solution
for this problem is God’s faithfulness, and this story
too is developed throughout scripture. Out of loss
and separation, through redemption, a new good
creation is brought into being, redemption possible
only because God entered into his creation, suffered
with and for his creation.
… Evolution is Peripheral
The story of evolution may be interesting, even
wondrous. I believe it provides even more reason to
be awed by God’s handiwork. However, it is should
not take center stage. Because evolution answers the
“how” of the origin of life, it is therefore a dependent
43
concept, dependent for purpose on creation which
answers the “who”, “what” and “why”; it is
peripheral to the questions of ultimate meaning in
life. God could have brought life forth in many
different ways, but it appears that biological
evolution was the mechanism he chose. Through this
process we obtain a better appreciation for the power
and scope of his creativeness, for his patience, and
for his insistence on cooperation rather than coercion.
However, an understanding of this process is not
essential to what we already know from the
scriptures about his love, selfless sacrifice,
forgiveness, and final redemptive plan.
Conclusion
Since creation is an essential part of the good news,
maybe I shouldn’t be so hesitant to wear the label
creationist. Maybe, like Denis Lamoureux, I should
call myself an Evolutionary Creationist. It certainly is
a more appropriate term than Theistic Evolutionist
since it highlights the centrality of creation. But I’m
hesitant to wear the creationist label since it would
require constant qualification. I’d rather stick with
the positive and simply answer “Creation? Yes!”
Note added April 3, 2009: Since this post was
originally published (as can be seen by other posts
included in this Ebook), I have become very
comfortable with the Evolutionary Creationist (EC)
label.
III. Promoting a Positive
Relationship Between Faith and
Science in Evangelical Churches
Published January 20th, 2008
It is not often you hear a positive message on the
relationship between science and faith in an
Evangelical church , or at least a positive message on
evolutionary science and faith. If evolution is
mentioned at all, it is usually cast in a very negative
light. Is there hope that this could change in the near
future?
The Clergy Letter Project
Three weeks from now hundreds of Christian pastors
will be preaching about evolution during their
Sunday morning sermon. But rather than delivering a
warning against the evils of evolution, these
ministers will be promoting peaceful coexistence
between the scientific theory and the Christian faith.
The coordinated messages on evolution will be
delivered on Feb. 10, 2008 to coincide with the 3rd
annual Evolution Sunday event (renamed to
Evolution Weekend for 2008). It is a event
spearheaded by The Clergy letter project, a group of
more than 11,000 clergy that have signed a formal
letter calling for an end to the conflict between
religion and science.
At first blush this project may be encouraging for
those of us who wish to promote a peaceful
coexistence between science and the Christian faith.
After all, removing the evolution “stumbling block”
should allow many seekers to reconsider the gospel,
and stop many Christians from doubting or
abandoning their faith. However, I suspect this
initiative will be unhelpful in promoting peace
between science and a specifically Evangelical
expression of the Christian faith since there is very
little Evangelical representation in the group and the
character of statement itself is not one that will attract
many Evangelicals.
a) Very Little Evangelical Presence
From my quick perusal of the thousands of clergy
that have signed the letter, I suspect that very, very
few of them are Evangelicals. In fact, denominations
lying outside of orthodox Christianity (eg. Unitarian
Universalists) are grossly overrepresented in the
group while thoroughly Evangelical denominations
seem entirely absent. Now denominations with
historic roots that include at least a minority of
Evangelicals (eg. Lutheran, Presbyterian, Methodist,
Episcopal, and Baptist) are well represented, but I
doubt that many of the congregations or pastors on
the list come from the Evangelical end of the
spectrum in their respective denominations. This may
be a broad coalition of Christian clergy that promotes
a positive view of evolution, but it clearly does not
represent broader Evangelicalism.
b) Not an Evangelical Statement
Parts of the statement are indeed quite good. Saying
that “the timeless truths of the Bible and the
discoveries of modern science may comfortably
coexist” is a great place to start. And I would more-
or-less agree with the assertion that “To argue that
God’s loving plan of salvation for humanity
precludes the full employment of the God-given
faculty of reason is to attempt to limit God”. I realize
that shared statements like these must be broad in
order to enable broad participation, but a statement
44
that does not include a single mention of Christ is
clearly not written with the input of Evangelicals or
with an Evangelical audience in mind. A careful
reading of the statement shows more of an influence
from NOMA originator Stephen Jay Gould than from
prominent Evangelical Faith / Science commentators
like Allister McGrath or Francis Collins. (For a more
positive Evangelical assessment of The Clergy Letter
Project, see Vance’s post at The Submerging
Influence).
Building an Evangelical Statement
Personally I would welcome a specifically
Evangelical statement regarding a positive
relationship between evolutionary science and faith.
A statement like this could have the same positive
effect in the Evangelical community that The
Evangelical Climate Initiative has had in the climate
change discussion. The ASA’s statement on Creation
includes a section entitled “The Theistic Evolution
(Continuous Creation, Evolutionary Creation)
View”, and this probably comes closest to fitting the
bill right now. However, I don't believe this
statement will have a dramatic effect since the
positive view of evolution is included in a document
that also includes anti-evolutionary statements (there
is a YEC view as well), there is very little awareness
of this document within the Evangelical community,
and it seems unlikely that the statement will be
widely promoted. Darrel Falk in his lecture Bridging
the Worlds of Faith and Biology (a very interesting
lecture that I recommend) hints that he and other
Evangelicals may be working on an initiative like this
in the near future, but I'm not aware of any details. I
will definitely be watching this closely.
I am interested in hearing what others think about
creating an Evangelical statement on evolution and
faith. Do you think there is enough momentum in the
Evangelical community for this type of proposal to
garner a significant level of support? Or would it be
dismissed as an initiative from the radical
Evangelical fringe? What do you think is the best
approach for this type of initiative? Is it something
that should originate in Evangelical academia? In
Evangelical denominational structures? Should
Evangelical umbrella organizations like the NAE and
the EFC be consulted and/or involved? Or would this
work better if it originated outside of these types of
organizations? After all, one positive aspect of the
Evangelical movement is that grass roots initiatives
can be very, very successful. Maybe the most
important question of all is whether this type of
initiative is constructive? Ie. will the benefits
outweigh the obvious risks?
A Positive Evangelical Sermon on the Faith /
Science relationship
For those that believe that a proposal like this is
doomed to fail or fizzle, and for those whose
experience in the Evangelical church is very painful
when it comes to the topic of evolution, I invite you
to listen to this sermon entitled “How can I reconcile
Science and Faith” by Tom VanAntwerp of Grace
Chapel in Lexington, MA (HT: David Opderbeck). It
is an incredibly good sermon that provides an honest
overview of the historical context, the modern
conflict, and a way for Evangelicals to approach
issues of science and faith. For those of us that have
studied the science / faith dialogue closely, there is
probably nothing new in the sermon. However, I
doubt that many of us have heard anything this
astute, wise, and pastorally helpful on the topic of
science coming from the pulpit of an Evangelical
church, nor could many of us do any better. I sure
couldn’t.
If this sermon is any indication, there is hope that we
Evangelicals can and will overcome our self-
defeating battle against evolution. At least I am
hopeful.
45