Just over 100 years ago the British Association for the Advancement of Science met at Oxford, England. Chief topic of discussion was the idea that all living things had developed over a long period of time from simpler organisms, an idea which had been suggested in a book published toward the end of 1859. Present to defend the book and its author was a young biologist, Thomas Huxley. Opposition to the new theory was spearheaded by a bishop of the Anglican church, Samuel Wilberforce by name. The debate droned on until finally the good bishop turned to Huxley and sarcastically asked whether it was through his grandfather or his grandmother that he claimed descent from a “venerable ape.” Huxley is reported to have replied, “If I am asked whether I would choose to be descended from the poor animal of low intelligence and stooping gait, who grins and chatters as we pass, or from a man, endowed with great ability and a splendid position, who should use these gifts to discredit and crush humble seekers after truth, I hesitate what answer to make.”
The conflict dragged on; there were divisions on both sides. Some scientists and clergymen supported, others opposed the new theory.
The controversy over evolution has continued. Almost all scientists today, however, have come to accept the theory, and a great many churchmen also. What is to be our position? Can evangelical Christians endorse the idea that all living organisms have developed from simple beginnings? Is it true that this is a scientific problem and not a theological problem? Are we being obscurantists in opposing this theory?
God’s Creation Is Not Static
We begin by defining terms. Some scholars hold that evolution is synonymous with change, and they ask whether we would insist on a static universe. Change occurs, unquestionably. Scripture nowhere speaks of a static creation. Indeed, Scripture refers repeatedly to changes that take place in the world in which we live and contrasts these with the changelessness of God. Evidences of change are found all about us. The landscape changes from erosion and deposition before our very eyes. Living things, too, change. We would deny the testimony of our senses as well as the clear statements of Scripture were we to insist on a static creation. The idea of a static creation comes from the Greeks, particularly from Aristotle, and not from Scripture.
This means that we must expect changes also in the living world. Specifically, we cannot accept the idea of fixity of species, a concept developed by Linnaeus. There is no question but that new species develop. The extent of such possible changes cannot be defined exactly. We do not know the exact taxonomic significance of the phrase “after its kind” which occurs in Genesis. The Bible does teach, however, that extent of change is limited. There are fixed bounds. Changes may take place within the kinds but there can be no change from kind to kind. The Bible also teaches very clearly that life existed from the beginning in a wide variety of forms, some relatively simple, others already highly complex. While there have been changes within these kinds, we have not had a development from the very simple to the highly complex.
The Role of the Creator
Most evolutionists today would also insist that life has developed from inorganic materials. They believe that, by some fortuitous combination of circumstances, nonliving material acquires that property which we call life, and that from this very simple beginning all things that are now alive have developed.
Now what has this to do with theology? Is this not strictly a scientific problem? Should we not seek the answers to these questions in the laboratory rather than in the Bible?
We ought first to recognize that the Bible itself speaks repeatedly of creation and always ascribes it to God. There are over 65 passages in Scripture which refer to creation. (These include: Gen. 1:1–31; Exod. 20:11; 1 Sam. 2:8; Neh. 9:6; Job 12:8, 9, 26:7, 13, 28:24–26, 37:16, 18, 38:4, 7–10; Pss. 8:3, 19:1, 2, 33:6–9, 65:6, 74:16, 17, 78:69, 89:11, 12, 90:2, 95:4, 5,102:25, 103:22, 104:2–6, 119:90, 124:8, 136:5–9, 148:5; Prov. 3:19, 8:26–29, 30:4; Eccl. 3:11, 11:5; Isa. 40:26, 28, 42:5, 44:24, 45:7–12, 18, 48:13, 51:13, 66:2; Jer. 5:22, 10:12, 27:5, 31:35, 32:17, 33:2, 51:15, 16; Amos 4:13, 5:8, 9:6; Jonah 1:9; Zech. 12:1; Mal. 2:10; John 1:3, 10; Acts 14:15, 17:24; Rom. 4:17, 11:36; 1 Cor. 8:6; 2 Cor. 4:6; Eph. 3:9; Col. 1:16, 17; 1 Tim. 6:13; Heb. 1:2, 10, 2:10, 3:4, 11:3; Rev. 4:11, 10:6, 14:7.) It is not true that creation is referred to only in the book of Genesis, nor is it true that the doctrine of creation is an obscure biblical doctrine. It is very clearly set forth in Scripture. Throughout the Bible, man’s obligation to God is made dependent upon the fact that God is his Creator.
Mechanistic and Materialistic
Moreover, evolution (except as it incorporates broken fragments of the biblical view) is mechanistic and materialistic, and this cannot be fitted into the Christian framework.
Theistic evolutionists ought to recall the theological consequences of Newtonian mechanics. Newton himself was a sincere and devout Christian. He not only acknowledged the existence of God but he accepted Christ Jesus as his Saviour. He believed that the majesty of God showed itself in the laws which he had established and through which he governed the universe. Yet the logical consequences of his own theories caused Newton great concern, because they seemed to make God unnecessary once the universe had been created and its laws established. The Bible speaks of God as both immanent and transcendent. While Newton believed that the laws of nature testify to God’s glory and to his majesty, his followers applied Occam’s principle of parsimony to eliminate God completely. Evolution at least denied divine immanence, applying the clockwork universe of Newton to the biological world. The universe became completely mechanistic; causal determinism became the watchword. The world of living things is ruled solely, it was said, by cause and effect, and the answer to the question of origins is to be found in natural law. While theistic evolutionists professed to see the hand of God behind natural law and behind cause and effect relationships, many evolutionists eliminated God completely.
Being mechanistic, evolution not only denies miracles, but the very possibility of miracles. It explains these away either as instances of faulty observation and reporting, or as instances where we are still ignorant of cause and effect relationships. Yet it is a fact that our Christian faith rests on miracle. Its foundationstone is the physical resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. This miracle was proclaimed by the apostles beginning on Pentecost. This miracle they preached to the ends of the earth. And this miracle is still the basis of our evangelical faith today. It is interesting to note that the clockwork universe of Newton no longer rules the world of physics today. Instead, we have the uncertainty principle of Heisenberg, and while this principle applies only on the sub-atomic level it casts serious doubt on the general principle of causal determinism.
Evolution also denies the reality of sin in the scriptural sense. A strictly evolutionary scheme denies man’s responsibility for sin and thus denies the need for a Saviour. Sin becomes not the consequence of a fall from the state of perfection, but the heritage of man’s supposed animal ancestry. Man acts contrary to God’s law not because he has deliberately chosen to defy God but because, coming up from the lower organisms, he assertedly has brought with him some of the moral standards of the jungle and barnyard. We ought not so much to criticize man for what Christians call sin, as to congratulate him for the progress he has made in overcoming his animal heritage.
Evolution is essentially fatalistic. We have noted that its basis is causal determinism. Even the God of the theistic evolutionist, sketched in conformity with this theory, was withdrawn completely from the world presumably created through natural processes. He neither works nor can he work miracles, since natural law assertedly governs this universe. Man is the hopeless and helpless victim of his environment. Except as an emotional catharsis, prayer is useless.
What about those evangelicals who say they are neither fiat creationists nor theistic evolutionists? Is there an alternative such as progressive creationism or scientific creationism?
Some reject fiat creationism because they believe it demands acceptance of the idea of fixity of species. They say they must accept horizontal radiation though they reject the vertical radiation of theistic evolution. But Scripture does not teach fixity of species or a static universe, and there is reason to believe we have had horizontal radiation—the development of new species within the “kinds” of creation.
Yet some of the concepts developed by those who call themselves progressive or scientific creationists do not really answer the difficulties they are supposed to answer. In an attempt to reconcile the geological record with the Genesis account and to solve the problem of time, many scientific creationists have accepted “day-epoch” or “day-revelation” interpretations of Genesis 1. Even if such interpretations did not go counter to principles of sound hermeneutics and exegesis, it should be noted that to regard the “days” of Genesis as long periods of time does not solve the problem of reconciling the Genesis sequence with the sequence of the geological record. It supplies an easy step to the mythological interpretation of Genesis and to theistic evolution.
What of Theistic Evolution?
What about theistic evolution? Can this be fitted into the scheme of our conservative Christian heritage? Some scholars assert that all who reject the Aristotelian concept of a static universe are theistic evolutionists, and they wonder why we shy away from this classification when we recognize the fact of change. Theistic evolution, however, is more than change. It is the acceptance of the Darwinian concept that all living things developed from relatively simple organisms. Those who hold to this idea believe that evolution was God’s way of effecting creation. They ask whether it would not be possible for God to create in this way, and they ask further whether using evolution as a means of creation would really detract from his glory. We must answer, of course, that God could have used evolution, and that we recognize in the operations of natural law a testimony of God’s glory. Yet it is not a question of what God could do; it is a question of what God does and of what he tells us he has done. Moreover, if God used evolution as a means of “creation,” then he owes us “redemption,” since he would then have created us imperfect and sinners.
Many theistic evolutionists, even in evangelical circles, have accepted a liberal or neoorthodox approach to the creation account. They tend to view the language of Genesis 1 through 11 as allegorical or mythological. They tell us that it is not to be regarded as a literal historical account, but rather as a story teaching “the great truth” that God was behind the process of creation. It is true, of course, that Scripture in places uses phenomenal language rather than exact scientific language. It speaks of the sun rising and setting, and we ought not to regard this as a testimony to the correctness of the Ptolemaic system. The fact of the matter is that we ourselves use such phenomenal language in everyday speech. Although we accept the Copernican theory, we speak daily of the sun rising and setting, rather than of the movements of the earth. Yet the extent and detail of the creation account, and the repeated scriptural references to it, certainly indicate that it is meant to be regarded as an historical account.
The Origin of Man
Theistic evolution necessarily denies the historicity of Adam and Eve. In any scheme of evolution it would be inconceivable to have a single man and woman as the first examples of Homo sapiens. Rather than individuals, Adam and Eve must represent an evolutionary population, the group of organisms which had achieved the status of Homo sapiens. Yet Christ refers to Adam and Eve as our first parents and indicates that he is speaking of two individuals. The Apostle Paul refers to Adam by name (Rom. 5:14; 1 Cor. 15:22, 45; 1 Tim. 2:13 f.). The last passage is particularly interesting because Paul says that Adam was formed first and then Eve. It is inconceivable that we should have had a population solely of males for a period of time before females were formed. It is also interesting to note that Paul here speaks of Eve being formed out of Adam, a clear reference to the creation account in Genesis 2:20–22. Paul makes Christ the second Adam. He compares him with the father of us all. If Adam is to represent an evolutionary population, then Christ also must represent a group.
Logically, any system of evolution leads finally to evolutionary humanism as a substitute for Christianity. It was this of which Julian Huxley, the grandson of Thomas Huxley, made so much at the recently-convened Darwin centennial festival. It is this which G. G. Simpson stressed at the December meeting of the American Association of the Advancement of Science in Chicago, where he referred to orthodox Christianity as “the higher superstitution.” It is true that there is a fortunate inconsistency in many evolutionists who also are sincere Christians. They do not carry out the theory to its logical conclusions. They still accept Christ Jesus as their Saviour from sin. Yet logically, “euglena to man” evolution can only lead to strict mechanism and materialism which certainly have no place in Christian theology.
JOHN W. KLOTZ
Chairman, Natural Science Division
Concordia Senior College
Fort Wayne, Indiana
