Essays on Religion

Topic 1: Evolution vs. Creation

We've got a nice little duel to start out with.

When Thomas Aquinas wrote the Summa Theologica, he began the nature of God and the nature of existence, and things like that. In comparison, “evolution vs. creation” doesn't seem like much of a starting point. In fact, I've picked it mostly because it's a hot button issue that refuses to go away. I hope I can draw in readers with this bait-like topic and maybe they'll stay for the rest. Plus a little disorganized chaos is good for a reader. Right?

So then, let's get down to terms. For the purposes of this argument, I'm going to define three terms: Creationism, Guided Evolution, and Unguided Evolution. They are—

Creationism: God made the world in six days, animals appeared as they are today. Humans were formed by God from dust and rib, and did not evolve from the lower orders.

Guided Evolution: God made the world in six distinct stages. Darwinian evolution appears to be the best theory for the science of how humans and animals appear, but it does not take account the “why” or theological truths that motivate evolution.

Unguided Evolution: Darwinian evolution occurred without any push or pre-determination by a God. Natural selection and genetics combined to create humans and animals.

Now in this epic cage match, I'm going to let you know what I think—and why—before I get to the other two viewpoints. So my first goal is to explain a Christian perspective. I am a Guided Evolutionist.

Why? For one thing, it's consistent with Genesis 1. Let's be clear with what I mean by consistent: if you read Genesis too literally, you have to take verses that could otherwise be important theological points and turn them into verses of questionable scientific merit. I want to point out that I DO believe Genesis contains the inerrant truth. A fair number of Christians these days are saying things like, “I don't need to believe Genesis is correct to be a Christian,” and I don't think that's strictly true. “True” and “literal” are not synonyms, no matter in which thesaurus you look.

But—I hear you ask—do we have evidence that Genesis was written for non-literal interpretations?

Well, we have primarily two. The first (and best) is the life of Jesus Christ. If you're a Christian, you acknowledge that the Old Testament has meaning through Jesus. Because of him. Jesus is the lens with which we must view every verse.

Tell me how Jesus talked. Parables, right? Jesus used metaphors and allegories, and stories, and symbols, and all that literary goodness. The longest section of the Bible is pure poetry (the Psalms) and we conclude the texts with Revelation. Do you understand revelation? Most of it? Any of it? Probably only a bit. And how about those prophets, huh? Ezekiel is jammed with illustrative examples and symbolic stories.

We are forced that Jesus the person speaks the way God the co-author writes. By allegory. Now look at Genesis and imagine the same author. (It is, after all).

The second point is this: Genesis does not say enough “how” to make it truly literal. If it was a little more data-centric with its language, I'd believe it was meant to be literal. But it is SO vague about the science, I am firmly convinced that science was not a goal. There are even contradictions if you take it purely literally--I mean within the text. Truth cannot contradict itself. Literalism has to be out.

What's a day to God, anyways? Is it really twenty-four hours? Someone who exists outside of material time and space is bound to our arbitrary system of time-keeping?

I want to get to a couple of other quick points.

First, please don't say “evolution is just a theory.” Theory in science is not like theory in pop culture. It's about as solid as it's going to be. Stop using this excuse.

Second, people always want to know about schools. I think the answer to this is clear. Science classes should teach Evolution—not teaching whether it was Guided or not. Time and a place for that discussion. Religion classes (which ought to be electives) can teach according to Genesis.

Atheists: Stop saying Christians are against science. We're really not. Some people have lost the understanding of a non-literal Bible, and hence science makes them scared. It's a perceived threat.

Chrsitians: Evolution might just teach us something about God. About how he works, and what he's like. Be open to it!

So. If I reject the literalism of certain phrases in Genesis, then what DO I take away from it? I've had some Christians think I'm not brave enough to believe the Bible. Let's see what I do believe from the first chapters of Genesis, and you tell me if I'm truly rejecting important theological points.

I believe that God was the creator of all things visible and invisible. I believe that he is the cause for which things exist. I believe that God is pleased with all his creation. I believe God created man, I believe he thinks it is not good for us to be alone, I believe that humans have a natural propensity for sin and it is what causes us to be expelled from God's presence. This is all from the first few chapters from Genesis. 

Is that not enough?

 In any event, that's about all I have for this topic.