You are on page 1of 7

Theistic Evolution as a Preferred Creation The-

ory
Alex Bartlow, 8/16/10, DRAFT COPY

Abstract
Theistic Evolution can be held without embracing an allegorical
reading of the Genesis creation account. Theistic Evolution is shown
to be an intellectually satisfying cosmology, as well as providing more
common ground for Evangelistic efforts in the current intellectual
cultural climate. Included is a discussion of Abiogenesis, as well as
a discussion of perceptions of a ‘fossil gap.’

A faithful reading of scripture leaves open the possibility of God creating life,
including the human body, through a combination of natural processes and su-
pernatural acts.1 The idea that Evolution is a substantial or primary means of
this creation, is usually rejected by Christians on the grounds that Evolution
itself is fraught with difficulty, or that accepting Evolution devalues God as cre-
ator, or that the human evolution devalues humanity as creation.(CITATION
NEEDED) This paper will first address some perceived problems with evo-
lutionary theory, second critique alternate biblically-abiding cosmologies, and
third discuss the benefits of a Theistic Evolution worldview for both Christians
and skeptics who believe that God requires them to surrender their scientific
knowledge ‘at the door.’

Abiogenesis
Many reject Evolution on the grounds that ‘Abiogenesis’ - life from non-life,
simply cannot have happened. The criticism is usually twofold, where the apol-
ogist points out that natural selection fails in the absence of reproduction and
life, and also that even the simplest cells are irreducibly complex, requiring a
designer. Some, in order to create a caricature of this problem, suggest the
most compelling explanation for abiogenesis involves extraterrestrial interfer-
ence. Neither of these objections are informed by modern Evolutionary theory
on the subject.
Sidney Fox has argued that simple carbon chemistry yields the substrates
necessary for thermal proteins to form spontaneously. These thermal proteins
are unlike modern proteins folding in already existing cells, but are instead
self-ordered poly-amino acids. These simple proteins, when in contact with wa-
ter, form a matrix where ‘proto-cells’ form - no more than chemical ‘bubbles.’2
1 Jeff Gordon, Doug Rudy. “Evolution and the Bible.”
http://www.xenos.org/essays/evolution.htm
2 Aristotel Pappelis, Sidney Fox. “Domain Protolife - Protocells and metaprotocells within

thermal protein matricies.” Journal of Biological Physics 20: 1994. c 1995 Kluwer Academic
Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands. Reproduced in Cyril Ponnamperuma, Julián Chela-

1
These cells are a far cry from the modern cells held up as an example of ‘irre-
ducible complexity.’ Even if these modern structures are ceeded as irreduceably
complex, the phenomenon of ‘irreducibly complex systems’ arising out of sim-
pler components is observable in nature, with such systems arising as recently
as within the last 70 years.3 Irreducable complexity is not a factor with this
‘Protolife domain,’ nor is it an insurmountable hurdle for evolutionary forces.
Fox surmises ‘Domain Protolife’ as an ancestor to all life as we know it,
comprised entirely of these protocells and their more complex metaprotocell
‘descendants.’ The acceptance of this theory blurs the line between life and
non-life, and adds the idea of ‘molecular selection’ to the Darwinian model of
Evolution. If chemical processes are ‘selected’ against, with more efficient re-
actions happening more frequently than others, there is a unification in the
Theory of Evolution, which then “is viewed as being cosmological in scope.”
(Fox, 131) Evolution becomes the sum of the exogenous process of natural se-
lection working together with the endogenous process of molecular selection.
Without a working division between life and non-life, the theory of evolution is
able to deal with abiogenesis.
This appears to pose a problem for Christians who hold Schaeffer’s view
that God’s creative work occurred through both ‘creation’ and ‘differentiation’
- it seems that God dividing life from non-life, and later plant life from animal
life, and finally animal life from human life puts us in direct contradiction to
the Evolutionary account of origins. However, Schaeffer says “in [some] places,
God is not so much making something come into being, or even differentiating
it as being, he is explaining what that sort of being means.” (Schaeffer, 34)
He adds an addendum afterwards that God is still working by fiat here, and
that is true - God’s sovereign process is still at work - but the language in this
creative lull between the the birth of the universe and the birth of humanity as
we know it is one of declaration, not of imperative command. “He is saying “let
this take place,” and it takes place.” (34) Where the chemical process shows
a continuity, our psyche cries out for differentiation between various strata of
life - and God’s enumeration of creative strata gives meaning to the complexity
resulting from the process. Such distinctions as ‘predator’ and ‘prey’ suddenly
mean more than choice of food - because in the mind of God these distinctions
have been given meaning.
The centurion understands the difference between declarative and imperative
command. He says ‘take such and such a hill,’ and his lieutenants under his
command work our for themselves the proper weaponry and tactics to take the
hill. He could very well adopt and imperative style of leadership, enumerating
the positions of each man under his charge, and a military genius could certainly
do this capably - however military leaders, much like spiritual leaders, seek to
Flores. “Chemical Evolution - The structure and model of the first cell.” Springer, 1995.
Pages 129-132.
3 Certain bacteria exhibit an ability to metabolize Pentachlorophenol, a highly toxic chemi-

cal, through an ‘Irreducibly complex’ process. Since the chemical was introduced only recently
by humans, the system must have evolved recently. A thorough discussion of IC is available
at Irreducible Complexity Demystified.

2
imbue a sense of independence to those under their authority. So it is with God,
who imbues his creations with special roles and spheres of their own delegated
authority. It is an attractive thought that God even allots the natural order
the ability to sort its own affairs, and the fact that the creation “groans for its
renewal” (revise) hints at this as well. This is not a Gaia hypothesis, it is the
implication of all things being sustained by the word of his power, and thus
being given life, since his word is life.
It is here that an apologist standing on Theistic Apologetics can make ab-
solutely crushing criticism of a naturalistic worldview. Naturalism gives no real
difference between human life and a random collection of polypeptides - the
very notion of a ‘problem of abiogenesis’ stands testament to this fact. It is
only through God’s declaration and enumeration that life is somehow different
and important that we have any basis for enjoying life at all, much less for the
study of a created order. If God has not declared a substantial difference be-
tween things, then we expect to see mostly similarities with few twists, and yet
all of creation cries out with beauty and complexity.

Fossil Gaps
The Creationist attack on evolution usually resembles the following:
“The fossil record - in defiance of Darwin’s whole idea of gradual
change - often makes great leaps from one form to the next. Far
from the display of intermediates to be expected from slow advance
through natural selection many species appear without warning, per-
sist in fixed form and disappear, leaving no descendants. Geology
assuredly does not reveal any finely graduated organic chain, and
this is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged
against the theory of evolution.” (Almost Like a Whale, p. 252)4
Scientists form two camps, one claiming that the lack of gradual a fossil record
is a result of imperfect fossilization, not a result of lack of evolving change. The
second claims that ‘punctuated equilibrium’ is at work, and evolution usually
occurs with sudden bursts. Apologists have attacked both ideas - pointing out
the unlikelihood of improper fossilization as well as the anti-Darwinian precept
of sudden speciation. The concept of punctuated equilibrium taught in every
introductory-level physical anthropology class seems to add credence to this
attack. However, this is only so if we are to portray punctuated equilibrium as
a process by which diversity spawns for no apparent reason.
Gould, one of the originators of the theory, states in his paper:
We argued that two outstanding facts of the fossil record—geologically
“sudden” origin of new species and failure to change thereafter (sta-
sis)—reflect the predictions of evolutionary theory, not the imper-
fections of the fossil record. In most theories, small isolated popu-
lations are the source of new species, and the process of speciation
4 Steve Jones. Almost Like a Whale. Doubleday, 1999

3
takes thousands or tens of thousands of years. This amount of time,
so long when measured against our lives, is a geological microsecond.
It represents much less than 1 per cent of the average life-span for
a fossil invertebrate species—more than ten million years. Large,
widespread, and well established species, on the other hand, are not
expected to change very much. We believe that the inertia of large
populations explains the stasis of most fossil species over millions of
years.
We proposed the theory of punctuated equilibrium largely to pro-
vide a different explanation for pervasive trends in the fossil record.
Trends, we argued, cannot be attributed to gradual transformation
within lineages, but must arise from the different success of certain
kinds of species. A trend, we argued, is more like climbing a flight
of stairs (punctuated and stasis) than rolling up an inclined plane.(5
)
Dawkins, a much more staunch gradualist, even argues for a ‘variable speedism,’
which accounts for the same data. The idea that all evolutionary progress is
continually moving forward at a gradual and slow rate is, as Dawkins puts it,
‘a caricature of Darwinism.’ (CITE) The Cambrian Explosion, long held to
be evidence of God’s creation through the rapid generation of life, is one such
period of rapid speed. Scientists have postulated that environmental factors
caused the change, but only this month have studies been published offering
explanation for the causes of this explosion.6
Creationists are quick claim that deficiencies in the fossil record cut down
evolution, and that God’s differentiation of life into ‘kinds’ more accurately
reflects reality. This, however, is special pleading - creationists expect that
evolutionists must provide an airtight fossil record supporting their case, while
they ignore the fact that a fossil record could harm their own. The appearance
of even a single transitionary form proves that natural processes are able to
create life outside of the bounds of the biblical ‘kinds.’ Even if these kinds are
incredibly broad in nature, we still see remarkable transitions between forms -
showing that differentiation happens outside of special creation. There are many
such transitional fossils, and therefore attack on evolution on these grounds must
be re-examined.7 8 “Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species
level, but they are abundant between larger groups.”9 If however, these kinds
are simply that, enumeration of kinds of animals, we find no problem with those
kinds reproducing and creating new kinds.
The most crushing criticism of naturalistic Evolution comes from philosophy,
not from science. Plantinga pointed out that ”. . . from this point of view, that
5 Citation Neededc
6 Skip Derra, “Explosive growth of life on Earth fueled by early greening of planet.”
Arizona State University, 2009. http://www.eurekalert.org/pubr eleases/2009 − 07/asu −
ego070809.php
7 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List f ransitional ossils
o t f
8 http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
9 Citation Neededc

4
the ultimate purpose or function of our cognitive faculties, if they have one, is not
to produce true beliefs, but to promote reproductive fitness. What our minds
are for (if anything) is not the production of true beliefs, but the production of
adaptive behavior.”10 He quotes Darwin:

With me, the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of
man’s mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower
animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust
in the convictions of a monkey’s mind, if there are any convictions
in such a mind?

Plantinga’s argument holds that as we gain confidence in Naturalism and Evo-


lution, we lose confidence in the rationality of Naturalism and Evolution, since
we must believe with increasing confidence that our minds themselves are not
rational.
If however, we believe our minds are part of the package when made in the
image of an all-knowing, all-rational God, we may fearlessly explore creation, in
full knowledge of truth and Truth, thanks to God’s inerrant and inspired Word
as revealed in the Bible.

Federal Headship
Many object to this reading of the text because of the perception that it removes
Adam from his place as natural progenitor of the Human race. This theory
does nothing of the kind - scripture says that Adam was formed from the dust
in the plainest historical sense, and we can take this act of special creation
literally. However, if the fossil record shows that Humans arose out of lesser
life forms, this special creation of Adam gives him more importance, not less,
and the importance of federal headship, in its truest form, is elevated and not
diminished.
Federal Headship is often explained through the example of the grandfather
going overseas to fight in a war, and settling down in France. Because of this de-
cision, all of his descendants must deal with being born into the French culture.
Yet, this is natural headship, not federal. Federal headship is better explained
as legal and judicial representation - the President signing a treaty that puts the
entire country, and all citizens involved, at peace with another nation. Indeed,
this is the definition that CARM advocates, (CITATION NEEDED) as well
as Millard Erickson.(CITATION NEEDED) Taking this view of federal head-
ship, we are even less constrained by the view of Adam becoming progenitor of
the human race post-fall, his representation of Man extends beyond his natural
headship, much as our sonship in Christ is not a natural headship at all.
In Hebrews, discussing the parallels between Abraham and Melchizadek,
Melchizadek is the federal head, and the levites inherit their role as priests
through the federal headship, not the natural headship of Abraham. Indeed,
10 Alvin Plantinga, Naturalism vs. Evolution: A Religion/Science Conflict? (2007)
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/alvinp lantinga/conf lict.html

5
we find this federal headship of priesthood in Job, as well as under the new
covenant with all believers becoming priests of this new covenant. (CITATION
NEEDED) Federal Headship explains mankind’s depravity just as well under
Theistic Evolution as under any other biblical creation theory.
Since Schaeffer points out repeatedly that the generations in Genesis are
not exhaustive, we do not have to place Adam’s real space-time creation at
a certain date, and are free to regard his creation at any point theologically
and scripturally most satisfying. He could certainly have been the progenitor
of a large swath of the human race, and nothing rules out a large group of
humans being borne in the Garden. Because of his federal headship, his fall
would extend to all of his offspring, born pre or post-fall. While Adam’s natural
headship makes him a natural candidate for federal headship, the examples
in the preceding paragraph do not necessitate that fact. There is no need,
under Theistic Evolution, to adopt an allegorical hermeneutic that degrades the
importance of a historical Adam, in fact, we must take a stronger stance on
literalism.

Contrast to Other Biblical Creation Theory


Other creation theories, such as Gap theory and Progressive Creationism, re-
quire the same sort of re-interpretation that this reading of scripture does. Gap
Theory interjects the idea of a global cataclysm with little biblical backing and
less geological and scientific backing, and is thus, if anything, less rooted in
scripture than this reading.
Progressive creationism, while maintaining more conservative exegesis from
scripture, still presupposes large gaps in the fossil record and the total inability
of the fossil record to explain those gaps. As has been demonstrated, that sort of
argument from silence is unfounded by modern science, and forces the believer
to reject evolution as an origin of any species.
Theistic Evolution, by contrast, places itself on a strong foundation in the
scriptures with no challenges to the theory that are not already found in science.
Under this theory, the strongest critics to Christianity may still find themselves
shoring up Christian doctrine. Properly understood then, Theistic Evolutionists
find the strongest basis of evidence within and without scripture for a faith
rooted in reason and truth.

Avenues in Evangelism
Even though open hostility and caricatures of creationism have been toned down
in recent years, through the course of writing this paper, some great conversa-
tions with nonbelievers have been sparked off through this discussion. The
prospect of a Christian that has intellectual integrity and attempts to become
more conversant with scientific pursuits than many in the secular world is in-
credibly attractive. Particularly in an era of intellectual apathy, any who still
maintain an approachable reality about them while becoming well versed in
theories and ideas are sure to open up doors - the same is true of anyone who

6
reads Nietzsche and Derrida and contrasts their meaninglessness to the grace-
focussed, full life of Biblical Christianity.
As mentioned before, the Christian can take the crucial role of the critical
insider when it comes to the application of Darwinism to other areas of life.
Dawkins himself is “strongly anti-Darwinian” when it comes to the sociological
implications of the Theory of Evolution.(CITE - Radiolab) By contrast, the
Theistic Evolutionist Christian stands strongly on the foundation of a humanity
created in the image of God, fallen from grace, and redeemed in Christ to be
conformed to the image of God’s only son. Such a unified view of Man is foreign
to the world, and provides another winsome attitude to conversation. The
Christian can take this to the ‘offensive’ in presuppositional apologetics, bringing
Naturalists to the point of tension and sharing with compassion the reality of
Christ. Likewise, Plantinga’s stinging critique of Naturalistic Evolution shows
the necessity of a rational mind imbued by her Creator.
Theistic Evolution provides a framework for Christians to both respond to
classic lines of criticism and engage in winning apologetics. Above all, it moves
the debate about origins back to the Christian home turf, the word of God,
where such discussions belong.

You might also like