 |
| Evolving 2023 Geoffrey W. Sutton & Bing AI |
Evolution, Psychology, and Christianity
Irreconcilable Differences
Barriers and Bridges
The Origin of Species by Means of
Natural Selection was published 24 November 1859. Scientists have built on
the solid foundation laid by Charles Darwin 165 years ago. New discoveries have
refined the theory and expanded our understanding of the evolution of life. For
example, we know a lot more about genetics than scientists did in the 1800s. As
is commonly known, Christian leaders have denounced evolution and fought the
teaching of evolution in American public schools for more than a century.
Clearly, the evolutionary explanation of
the origins of life, including human beings, is not compatible with traditional
Christian teaching about the creation. Evolution explains the diversity of life
through such processes as natural selection, mutation, and genetic drift. All
species evolve and those that survive to reproduce pass along their genes to
the next generation. The process takes billions of years.
In contrast to evolution, the biblical
creation text in Genesis attributes the existence of plant, animal, and human
life to God who acted to create different living things on different days. The text
identifies the days by mornings and evenings. For example, in chapter one, God
created grass and fruit trees on day three. But on day four, God made the lights
in the heavens. God created one man in God’s image on day six. In chapter two,
God created one woman from Adam’s rib. The belief in the biblical text description
of creation is known as Christian creationism. I add the word Christian because
adherents of other religions may believe that God created the world and its
inhabitants.
It would be a mistake to focus attention on
Genesis and ignore the rest of scripture when it comes to barriers to the
reconciliation of creation and evolution. For example, John Piper (2013),
chancellor of Bethlehem College & Seminary, identified four stumbling
blocks to reconciliation. Before describing the blocks, Piper presented
three types of compatibility problems associated with godless evolution which
are incompatibility with creation, God, and Christianity. Piper did not deny
the possibility of God as the designer of the process of natural selection, but
challenges readers to think about two elements in the Genesis text as well as
sin and nature’s beauty and complexity. Piper reminded readers that in the
Genesis text, God was directly involved in creating kinds of animals and
uniquely involved in creating man. The sin problem referred to a quote by Paul
in his letter to the Romans—one man brought sin into the world and sin resulted
in death, which is a contrast to all the years of deaths preceding modern
humans. And finally, Piper noted the difficulty in denying creation when he
considers the wonders of nature including its diversity and complexity.
My reason for referring to John Piper is
his ability to articulate barriers that might cross the minds of congregants
who wonder about reconciling creation and evolution. He is aware that a bridge
of reconciliation exists but cannot bring himself to cross it.
Acceptance and Rejection of Evolution
It is easy to see why so many Christians
reject the scientific explanation, which does not include a role for God and is
markedly different from the Genesis account. However, more and more Christians
have gradually accepted the scientific explanation of the origins of life.
According to Pew Research (Masci, 2019),
81% of Americans agree that humans have evolved over time. The largest group
rejecting evolution were white evangelical protestants—38% believe humans
existed in their present form in contrast to other evangelicals who believe
humans evolved but God guided the process. Overall, most American Christians believe
humans evolved and that God or a higher power was involved in the process.
Scientists overwhelmingly accept the science
of evolution (98%; Masci, 2019). Christians who reject the traditional creation
story that relies on a literal view of the Genesis text appear to have accepted
the scientific evidence for evolution and attempted to bridge the gap between biblical
language and the scientific presentation of evolution by declaring that God was
somehow involved in the origins of life.
Creationism
Christians who reject evolution have
offered various arguments to criticize evolution and offer alternative
explanations for the scientific evidence. Some have claimed evolution is just a
theory and some attempt to poke holes in the theory. An example of a Christian creationist
approach can be found in the Creation Museum located in Petersburg, Kentucky,
USA and the related website, answersingenesis.org.
Intelligent Design
Another approach to understanding the
origins of life is known as Intelligent Design (ID). The Discovery Institute in
Seattle, Washington publishes textbooks that challenge evolution. The ID
approach presents examples of design in nature and proposes that the design is
the result of an intelligent cause. Intelligent Design has applied scientific
methods to detect design in irreducibly complex biological structures, the
complex and specified information content in DNA, the life-sustaining physical
architecture of the universe, and the geologically rapid origin of biological
diversity in the fossil record during the Cambrian explosion approximately 530
million years ago. ID does not claim that the intelligent cause is a
supernatural agent. See intelligentdesign.org for more information.
 |
| Rib Sculpting 2023 Geoffrey W. Sutton & Bing AI |
BioLogos and Evolutionary Creation
As noted previously, many Christians accept
the scientific evidence of evolution. A statement from BioLogos (2023, November
20) reads “God is the creator and sustainer of all things, and evolution is the
best scientific explanation for the relatedness of life on Earth.”
BioLogos is a term created by scientist Francis
Collins. A further explanation of their position illustrates how the BioLogos
group respects both science and the biblical text.
Evolutionary
Creation (EC) is a Christian position on origins. It takes the Bible seriously
as the inspired and authoritative word of God, and it takes science seriously
as a way of understanding the world God has made. EC includes two basic ideas.
First, that God created all things, including human beings in his own image.
Second, that evolution is the best scientific explanation we currently have for
the diversity and similarities of all life on Earth. (BioLogos)
BioLogos presents a traditional view of core
Christian beliefs. They are not deists but people who believe in a God who made
humans in God’s image. In their writings, they note that some believe Adam and
Eve were historical figures but others see the biblical story as a symbolic
account of the story of Israel or of all people.
The writers at BioLogos have considered the
problem of rejecting a literal interpretation of Genesis. As mentioned previously
when reviewing views concerning the origins of the cosmos, a rejection of a
literal interpretation of scripture provides a basis for wondering what parts
of scripture should be taken literally and what parts may be interpreted
figuratively. The following BioLogos statement is highly relevant to this
review.
We don’t expect
the Bible to reveal scientific facts that the original authors wouldn’t have
understood. We don’t try to explain away the Bible’s evidence that people in
biblical times had pre-scientific ideas and concepts. We prayerfully seek
guidance from the Holy Spirit as we learn from teachers and scholars whose work
can deepen our understanding of God’s word. (Biologos)
When it comes to the origins of life,
including human life, evolution is the best way to explain the process. It
appears obvious to both scientists and many Christians that the Genesis
creation story cannot be literally true in a historic or scientific sense. The belief
claims of BioLogos provoke thinking about interpreting the Bible given their
affirmation of evolution on one hand and their affirmations “that God created
all things” and the Bible is “the inspired and authoritative word of God” on
the other hand.
Christians who insist on a literal view of
Genesis maintain a barrier to bridging the gap between science and Christianity.
For them, there is an irreconcilable difference between science and
Christianity. The worldviews are incompatible.
Christians, like those who write for
BioLogos, find ways to think about God’s work in creation and science,
including evolution. As with scientific accounts of the cosmos, Christians are
in a position of accommodating science and reinterpreting the Bible so that it
does not contradict scientific explanations.
Evolutionary Psychology
Psychological scientists have explored how
our evolutionary past may influence human nature. The field of evolutionary
psychology should be viewed in the context of sociobiology and the work of E.
O. Wilson. One example of an evolutionary psychological perspective is the view
that cognitive processes and associated behavior may be considered adaptations
our ancestors needed to survive and reproduce. This subfield is rather new and
some hypotheses have been strongly criticized. A helpful analysis can be found
in the Plato
Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
A
Philosophical Perspective
1. The traditional Christian teaching about
creation is not compatible with the scientific explanation of the diversity of
life. Perhaps of more concern to Christians is the evolution of human beings.
There is an irreconcilable difference between those who endorse creationism and
the science of evolution.
2. Efforts identified by various authors as
either the reconciliation or the integration of faith and science appear to
help those Christians who are willing to accept various nonliteral ways of
reading the creation story in Genesis. Thus, Christians who embrace the scientific
evidence supporting evolution do not view the Genesis creation text as
historically or scientifically accurate.
3. BioLogos serves some Christians who
explore ways to understand the Bible without denying evolution. Christians who
want a definitive answer in how to read the creation story and reconcile that
story with evolution will likely be disappointed given the various ideas
presented on the BioLogos website such as their openness to options that do not
view Adam and Eve as the first humans, which appeared on earth 200,000 or so
years ago.
4. The concepts of reconciliation and
integration do not appear to capture the process of religious scholars who
offer ways to reinterpret the Bible in light of scientific advances. The
process of Christian acceptance of the science of evolution appears more like
one of accommodation than either reconciliation or integration.
4.1 I am using the
term reconciliation in a restrictive sense to mean there are two very different
accounts of the origins of life (Genesis text-based creation and evolution) to
be reconciled such that, after reconciliation, there is only one account. The
key elements in the Genesis text simply do not match up with the scientific
explanation of evolution.
4.2 I am using the
term integration to mean combining two things into an integrated whole. In this
sense, I do not see how the Genesis text as traditionally understood can be
combined with the scientific explanation of evolution that we might find in a
contemporary textbook.
4.3 I am using the
term accommodation in the sense of adapting to or adjusting to something. This
is what I think I see in BioLogos, which affirms that truth of evolution,
affirms the existence of the God of the Bible, but is open to alternate ways
Christians may interpret the Genesis text. Thus, Christians who affirm
evolution reinterpret scriptures to accommodate science. Accommodation is
neither reconciliation nor integration.
5. In consideration of point 4.3, there
appear to be several general options open to Christians who accept the science
of evolution and affirm their faith in God. In this point, I list several
options, but I do not claim these are the only options available.
5.1 The Genesis text can be viewed as a
truthful record of how people understood aspects of the world thousands of
years ago.
5.2 The Genesis text can be viewed as
similar to ancient stories that offered the Jews an account of their origins in
the form of a story. Calling the Genesis text a story does not mean it is a
work of fiction, but rather that it conveys a spiritual truth using literary
means.
5.2.1 The Genesis
text may be viewed as a poetic presentation of origins.
5.2.2 The Genesis
text may be viewed as presenting truth using metaphors. For example, Christian creationists
and noncreationists can view God as Spirit rather than having body parts that literally
formed a man from dust (Genesis 2:7).
5.2.3 The Genesis
text may be viewed as a story with symbolic meaning. For example, dust may
symbolize our earthly existence or humility.
Psychological
Considerations
and
More Irreconcilable Differences
For strongly committed Christians, a
Christian identity is a significant component of their self-identity,
which is an important component of their self-concept. For some, a
specific group or denominational identity is paramount. Self-esteem is
an associated feature of self-concept. The creation texts refer to man
as made in God’s image, but the concept of God’s image is imprecise. Given the text
of the sin that placed Adam and Eve outside Eden (Genesis 3:22-24), one aspect
of being made in God’s image may refer to knowing right from wrong. It seems
that Christians who accept evolution may wish to consider what it means for men
to be made in God’s image and how that contributes to self-esteem. Perhaps for
some who affirm evolution, the Genesis statement that man was made in God’s
image is sufficient, but others may need to re-interpret the text to apply the
principle to human evolution in general and to women in particular.
Psychological scientists have affirmed
positions that are incompatible with the positions of some Christians who have referred
to the Genesis creation texts to partially support their sociomoral views (APA,
n.d.; APA, 2015, June 26; APA, 2015; APA, 2022; McLain, 2018). The distinct sociomoral
positions represent irreconcilable differences for some Christians. Those who
wish to reconcile or integrate Christianity and psychology will have difficulty
bridging these gaps in the moral divide. The divisive positions include: (1) the
inclusion or exclusion of women from select roles in society or the church, (2)
the affirmation or refusal to affirm same-sex marriage, (3) the support for or refusal
to support gender-affirming care for transpersons, and (4) the support for or refusal
to support effective means of contraception. Although some Christians have
accommodated the perspective of psychological scientists, others clearly have
not. These sociomoral issues will be treated in more depth later.
Over the years, the arguments about
creation and evolution have sometimes been acrimonious (e.g., Gross, 2018).
Educators and others involved in communicating about evolution may find it
worthwhile to consider the emotional investment people often have in strongly
held beliefs such as beliefs in creationism. Anti-evolutionary positions are
not always due to a lack of knowledge or understanding of evolution. The
principle of sunk costs may be at work when people invest more heavily in their
position when their investment is not faring well, which of course increases
resistance to well-meaning educational efforts (Sutton, 2013). Anger and fear
may be emotional barriers preventing Christians who reject evolution from
objectively considering the scientific evidence.
People under threat generally become more
conservative and more religious. Attacks or perceived attacks on creationism or
the Bible may serve to strengthen resistance to peaceful discussions about the
science of evolution. Unfortunately, evolution has become a trigger word and
attempts to use alternative language for the process of evolution may be seen
as trickery.
Summary
and Conclusions
A significant number of Christians do not
affirm the science of evolution. They view the Genesis texts regarding creation
as distinctly different from evolution in several respects. For many, there is
an irreconcilable difference between evolution and creation. And the prospect
of a full integration of faith and science does not appear on the horizon. Christians
who reject evolution have created barriers that prevent their followers from
entering one of the bridges that maintain a Christian identity and simultaneously
accommodates scientific evidence incompatible with a surface reading of the
Genesis creation text.
Many Christians retain a fervent commitment
to their faith and have tacitly or explicitly affirmed the science of
evolution. Several ways of remaining Christian and affirming evolution appear
to involve one or more ways of reading the Genesis text in a nonliteral manner.
Such approaches appear to be more like accommodating science rather than either
reconciliation or integration of faith and science.
When Christians reject the surface meaning
of various scripture passages to accommodate scientific evidence, they become
open to new possibilities for finding truth in scripture and the natural world.
References
American
Psychological Association. (2015, June 26). APA praises Supreme Court
decision affirming right to same-sex marriage [Press release]. https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2015/06/same-sex-marriage
American
Psychological Association. (2022, March 1). APA reaffirms support for
reproductive rights, including access to legal abortion [Press
release]. https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2022/03/reproductive-rights
American
Psychological Association. (n.d.). Committee on Women in Psychology. Retrieved from
https://www.apa.org/pi/women/committee/1
American
Psychological Association. (2015). Guidelines for Psychological Practice With
Transgender and Gender Nonconforming People. American Psychologist, 70(9),
832–8641
BioLogos
(2023, November 20). What is evolutionary creation? BioLogos. Retrieved January
3, 2024 from https://biologos.org/common-questions/what-is-evolutionary-creation
Gross, R. E. (April 19). How to talk with
evangelicals about evolution. Smithsonian Magazine. Retrieved from How to
Talk With Evangelicals About Evolution | Science | Smithsonian Magazine
Intelligent
Design (n.d.). What is intelligent design? Intelligent Design. Retrieved
January 3, 2023 from https://intelligentdesign.org/whatisid/
McClain,
L. (2018, July 9). How the Catholic Church came to oppose birth control. The
Conversation Retrieved from How the
Catholic Church came to oppose birth control (theconversation.com)
Piper, J. (2013, March 22). Can we
reconcile creation and evolution? Desiring God. https://www.desiringgod.org/interviews/can-we-reconcile-creation-and-evolution#Four%20Stumbling%20Blocks%20of%20Evolution
Sutton, G. W. (2024, January 7).
Evolutionary psychology and Christianity: Barriers and bridges.
Sutton, G. W. (2013, August 15). On sunk
costs and investments in religious doctrine. Retrieved from Geoff W. Sutton Blog: On Sunk Costs and Investments in
Religious Doctrine (geoffwsutton.blogspot.com)
Post sponsored by
A House Divided
Related Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment