What is it?
Theistic Evolution is the belief that God created the Earth, and then used evolutionary processes to create the living creatures of the Earth, such as plants and animals.
Why do you not believe in a young earth?
In recent times, science has proven (almost) beyond doubt that the Earth is older than previously thought much older. Discoveries in numerous scientific fields, including astronomy, physics, chemistry and geology, have led scientists to believe that the Earth came into existance around 5 billion years ago. These discoveries, combined with knowledge from the fields of archaeology, paleontology, history, and biology, have led to the near-universal acceptance of evolution within the scientific community. As Christians, we must ask: Are the scientists wrong with regards to the age of the earth; their hypothesis having not been disproven (although many attempts have been made) for the last 200 years? Or are we wrong with our interpretation of the Bible; a book that, although we all believe is the word of God, we at times struggle to understand?
As theistic evolutionists, we believe that the latter is the case. It is not that we trust science more than the Bible. We just believe that if science appears to disprove the Bible, then we obviously aren't interpreting the Bible correctly. It is for this reason we accept an old-earth (and as a consequence, evolution). After all, if God did make the world very recently, how come He made it so scientists would think it was so old? Of course, none of us are really fit to answer this question, but most of us believe that God would not deliberately cause anyone to think the world was old unless it really was, and so accept an old Earth.
But the science says the earth is young!
I'm sorry, but it doesn't. Although there are several groups around that oppose evolution, the fact is most scientists believe that the earth is old, and evolution happened. Science, by definition, is the secular observation of the world, and naturalistic phenomena. There are only two reasons why scientists would have come to the conclusion that the earth was old, if in fact it wasn't:
a) Scientists are stupid.
b) Scientists are part of an atheistic conspiracy to disprove creation.
Remarkable as the latter claim seems, it forms a large part of 'evidence' against creation. However, this claim is remarkably without warrant. Many of the original scientists who formulated the now-accepted theories about the Earth's creation were indeed Christian - why would Christians want to disprove their faith? I recently attended a seminar at my church, run by the director of a well-known Australian 'Creation Science' institute. Having taken a biology course, and learning about evolution and how it works, I was interested to hear about what his research institute had come up with, from a scientific perspective. Needless to say, I was most shocked when, less than 10 minutes into his talk, he started throwing around preposterous statements about Darwin, and how he (apparently) invented the theory of evolution to disprove God!
Of course, Darwin (like anyone else) did have struggles with his faith. His observations in nature challenged him greatly, as they appeared to contradict the teachings of his church (which were that the earth was very young, based on a literal reading of Genesis). But to suggest he was out of disprove God, just because he held an opposing view than his native denomination, is a rather odd statement to make. Were Luther and Calvin out to disprove God, when they challenged church doctrine during the Reformation? Was Wesley out to disprove God by founding the Methodist congregation? I think not.
Likewise, the concept of the 'Big Bang', which posits that the universe was created out of a singularity around 13.7* billion years ago, was not invented by an atheist. In fact, the concept was first proposed by Georges-Henri Lemaître in 1927, a physicist, mathematician, and ordained priest in the Roman Catholic Church. His theory, which suggested an expanding universe, was initially not accepted by many scientists, among other reasons because it suggested that the universe was created:
"This proposal caused a sharp reaction from the scientific community of the time. Eddington found Lemaitre's notion unpleasant. As for Einstein, he found it suspect, because, according to him, it was too strongly reminiscent of the Christian dogma of creation and was unjustifiable from a physical point of view."**
Evolution says we evolved from nothing, which is impossible!
This is one of the widest misconceptions about evolution. In fact, evolution does have anything to do with how the first organisms came about, evolution only says how those organisms passed on their genetic material to the next generation, and how genetic material was changed over time. As yet, scientists do not have a definitive explanation for how the first organisms came about. The most popular theory is that the first 'living creatures' were simply self-replicating polypeptides, which later developed into more complicated (but still very basic) self-replicating systems. However, this has nothing to do with evolution. If someone tells you that we all evolved from a rock, please do argue with them! But likewise, if someone tells you that evolution says we all evolved from a rock, keep in mind that is not what it says at all. Evolution is only concerned with existing populations, it does not have anything to do with how the original organisms came about.
Genesis 1 can only be read literally; the church has always taught that.
Unfortunately for TE's today, many YEC's propogate the idea that the church has always taught that Genesis 1, and the following chapters, must be read literally. However, this is a claim without much supporting evidence. In fact, from the very start of the Christian Church, well-known theologians have recognised the poetic nature of Genesis, and recognised that it is not necessarily supposed to be taken literally. This is for a number of reasons, but primarily due to the seeming contradictions one comes across when taking both Genesis 1 and 2 literally:
- Genesis 1:5
This talks about the 'first day'. YEC's would argue this is a literal, 24 hour day, defined by the sun. However, the sun is not created until the 'fourth day' (cv. Genesis 1:14). If the sun is not in existance, than how can one say a day is a literal 24-hour period of time marked by the movement of the sun?
- Genesis 1:11-31
In this passage, God creates the plants, sun, moon and stars, animals, then humans, in chronological order. However, in Genesis 1:18-19, we read that God creates the animals after He has created Adam. This is hard to explain if the chronologies of both are accurate.
- Genesis 4:16-17
In this passage, it is mentioned Cain went to live in the land of Nod, where he took a wife and conceived a son. Several questions arise here. Firstly, where did his wife come from? Was she an unmentioned daughter of Adam and Eve, who too rejected God and left for the Land of Nod? Or did she come from the Land of Nod, where Cain went to? If this is indeed the case, this implies that not only did God create Adam and Eve in the garden, but also created Cain's wife in the Land of Nod, which would appear to go against literalist views. Of course, one must also wonder how many people were living in the Land of Nod...
- Genesis 4:14-15
This raises another point regarding Cain. In this passage, Cain fears he will be murdered for his actions, so God sets 'a mark upon Cain'. Who was going to kill Cain, if only him, Adam and Eve were on the Earth?
The truth is, the insistance on a literalist reading of the Bible is confined to primarily fundamentalist groupings with Christianity, not the greater church, and the idea of strict literalism is not a traditional concept. This is evidenced by the writings of many of the early church theologians, who realised that there was more to the creation account than a historical record, primarily due to the contradictions shown above, and with obvious regard to the poetic structure of the account. When one comes across contradictions, what does one do? Does one ignore them? Does one simply write off the Bible as nonsense? (Surely, many people, faced with either accepting a literal reading, or denying the Bible, have chosen the latter). Or does one seek another explanation; realising that the text could be metaphorical?
This indeed is the option the Church has taken, and not just since the Big Bang theory gained acceptance. Take a look at the following quotes from early theologians in the Church:"For who that has understanding will suppose that the first and second and third day existed without a sun and moon and stars and that the first day was, as it were, also without a sky? ...I do not suppose that anyone doubts that these things figuratively indicate certain mysteries, the history having taken place in appearance and not literally."
- Origen
"And with regard to the creation of the light upon the first day ...and of the [great] lights and stars upon the fourth... we have treated to the best of our ability in our notes upon Genesis, as well as in the foregoing pages, when we found fault with those who, taking the words in their apparent signification, said that the time of six days was occupied in the creation of the world."
- Origen
"And how could creation take place in time, seeing time was born along with things which exist? ...That, then, we may be taught that the world was originated and not suppose that God made it in time, prophecy adds: This is the book of the generation, also of the things in them, when they were created in the day that God made heaven and earth [Gen. 2:4]. For the expression when they were created intimates an indefinite and dateless production. But the expression in the day that God made them, that is, in and by which God made all things, and without which not even one thing was made, points out the activity exerted by the Son."
- Clement of Alexandria
"With the scriptures it is a matter of treating about the faith. For that reason, as I have noted repeatedly, if anyone, not understanding the mode of divine eloquence, should find something about these matters [about the physical universe] in our books, or hear of the same from those books, of such a kind that it seems to be at variance with the perceptions of his own rational faculties, let him believe that these other things are in no way necessary to the admonitions or accounts or predictions of the scriptures. In short, it must be said that our authors knew the truth about the nature of the skies, but it was not the intention of the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, to teach men anything that would not be of use to them for their salvation."
- Augustine
"On the fourth day the luminaries came into existence. Since God has foreknowledge, he understood the nonsense of the foolish philosophers who were going to say that the things produced on earth come from the stars, so that they might set God aside. In order therefore that the truth might be demonstrated, plants and seeds came into existence before the stars. For what comes into existence later cannot cause what is prior to it."
- Theophilus of Antioch
As we see, the theologians had differing viewpoints, but were in agreement that the 'days' in Genesis were not literal days, and that as such creation could have taken longer than 144 hours. Hence, any argument that the Church has 'always taught' that literalism is vital to interpretation of Scripture should not be taken seriously.***
. This said, I hope I can offer an insight into the basics of our beliefs, and why we believe what we do, as opposed to other creationist viewpoints, primarily Young Earth Creationism.
