In the following interview two Gordon College professors, Dr. Richard Wright, professor of biology, and Dr. Jack Haas, chairman of the chemistry department, talk about their approach to teaching creation, origins, and evolution. Both have been active in the American Scientific Affiliation, and Haas is its current president. The discussion was conducted by David Singer, art director of Christianity Today.
Singer. Do you see in Scripture a starting point for the discussion of origins?
Haas. I feel that Scripture provides the framework for the consideration of any basic question. It is not a book of science, but it gives the framework for looking at science.
Singer. It seems to me that if one accepts the Genesis account of creation as literal, as an account of a cataclysmic event wherein God created the world in six twenty-four-hour days, that’s one way of dismissing all the speculative explanations for the origins of life.
Haas. I find most biblical scholars unwilling to restrict “day” to a twenty-four-hour period, and surely the seventh day, on which God has rested from his work, is more than twenty-four hours long in that it’s extended from the era of creation to the period of the new heaven and the new earth.
Singer. What about the creation account in the first and second chapters of Genesis?
Haas. Evangelical scholars haven’t come to a unified conclusion about the nature of the account, whether it involves a long time-span or a short time-span, the meaning of some of the key words, the chronology, or the purpose of the account. Must we find in Scripture a statement of scientific detail which will square with the scientific data of any period and time? Or should we focus on the broad sweep of Scripture which sees God as creator, superintending each detail of the process leading to the world about us? I think the conflict comes when we’re forcing Scripture to supply the kind of evidence one employs in scientific discussion.
Wright. I think much of the difficulty in this evolution question arises from trying to interpret the Bible in the light of the scientific perspective of maybe 125 years ago.
Singer. Is evolution being presented in the Christian colleges?
Wright. Let me refer to the questionnaire that originated from the first Faith-Learning Seminar held by the Christian College Consortium in 1972. Dr. Al Smith of Wheaton College surveyed the science and math faculty of the Consortium’s member institutions about their teaching approach in dealing with evolution. The data indicate that the topic of evolution and creation is handled primarily by the biology departments. Sometimes there are special courses in evolution or evolutionary biology. The Christian college is a good place to work with an issue like this. As long as the faculty are given the freedom to deal with it, a lot can be done to defuse it as a highly emotional issue.
Singer. Did the consortium questionnaire reveal any particular evolutionary models that are presented as alternatives?
Wright. Smith said that, from the results of the questionnaire, he felt that the majority of the science faculty members take either a progressive creationist or theistic evolutionist position. But they try to present a variety of possibilities to students. They don’t attempt to proselytize in favor of their own views.
Singer. What is an evolutionary view of creation?
Wright. An evolutionist would hold that there are processes of natural selection at work today in the living world. Genetic differences in organisms provide the raw material on which natural selection can work and bring about changes in a species. And, in fact, as long as you have some geographical isolation, over a period of time, you can have the evolution of two species from one. This is what we would call microevolution or speciation. Most creationists would find it very hard to deny that this is going on today. The evolutionist, however, would extrapolate this method into the past to explain how all the different organisms came to be.
Singer. How does a creationist’s view of evolution differ from an evolutionist’s view?
Wright. Are you using creationist to mean a person who believes in the six-day creation of a young earth?
Singer. Are there other ways of understanding that term?
Wright. There definitely are. Any scientist who approaches this problem of creation and evolution as a Christian would way, “Yes, I’m a creationist; I believe that God is the creator and the sustainer of the universe, and in fact is the author of all things that exist.” The differences would come down to the involvement of natural process and the degree to which God, in his creative activity, either suspended natural processes or just worked through them to bring about his own purposes in creation.
Singer. How plausible is it, considering the complexity of design in our universe, that this just developed randomly, by chance?
Wright. You’re talking about impersonal mechanism vs. a creator God who fashions the natural world. A mechanistic view of evolution doesn’t necessarily bypass the need for God; it’s just saying that the known mechanisms are sufficient to explain the origins by some sort of natural means. It doesn’t attempt to explain where the mechanism originated or why the universe is orderly. Science simply isn’t competent to speak to these ultimate questions. Christian scientists agree that God is the author of the universe and is actively involved in this world. The basic disagreement is between the literal creationist point of view and the Christian who believes in some sort of evolutionary process. Fiat creation—the view that creation occurred in a kind of instantaneous fashion in a short period of time, say six days—implies that the process which God used is supernatural, which means that it’s out of the realm of investigation; we can’t touch it scientifically. Good exegesis doesn’t require this. The alternative view is that God is involved in process, and there’s good evidence, in Scripture and certainly from nature, that points to this conclusion.
Singer. Could you cite some of the scriptural evidence?
Wright. The wording of Genesis, “Let there be a firmament,” “Let the waters bring forth,” “Let the earth bring forth,” is obviously not the same as saying God created the earth as it is instantaneously. There’s also a very nice comparison between God’s creative activity and his sustaining activities. The Word of God indicates his creative activity. I make reference here to Psalm 33, where we are told that by the Word of God the heavens were made. Later, in Psalm 147, it says that his Word spreads snow like a blanket; he sent his Word to bring the thaw and warm wind to melt the snow. This refers, of course, to God’s sustaining activity. He’s involved in the natural processes, and these are ascribed to the Word of God. Therefore to deny that there’s process in creation is to deny that God could have achieved his aims in natural ways, using his own “natural methods” to bring about his will. We call these methods “natural forces,” and we explain them with the use of “natural laws.” However, this doesn’t explain their origin or how they’re upheld or why such order exists.
Singer. What is your own approach in teaching origins?
Haas. First of all, I look at origins from a theistic perspective, and at no point in the discussion do I talk about chance and randomness. I continually emphasize a creating and sustaining God involved in every intimate detail of every moment.
Wright. In my core course, when I talk about evolution and creation, I present the various viewpoints held by Christians. My desire in doing this is to make very clear to the students that there is no single orthodox Christian approach to origins and creation; Christians need not feel constrained to reach total agreement on this subject. I present some of the viewpoints of fiat creation, of progressive creation, and of theistic evolution. I try to present these fairly, and I tell the students that they certainly should not assume anything about a person’s Christian commitment on the basic of his approach to creation or evolution.
Singer. Earlier you spoke about speciation, or micro-evolution, and said that most creationists would find it hard to deny that this is going on. Is there any evidence for a more fundamental change, like going from one phylum to the next?
Wright. Here I wish I were more familiar with the total evidence for evolution. I would judge that there’s very little evidence for the evolution of the phyla. There are many gaps between different forms.
Singer. In the classroom, how would you deal with this matter of gaps?
Wright. Well, I would say that the Christian could postulate a couple of reasonable explanations. Evolutionarily speaking, one could say that the gaps are there because the forms were not preserved in the fossil record. Fossil preservation is a very haphazard process. It’s possible that, especially during the period of evolution of invertebrate phyla, the organisms involved really didn’t have any major hard parts that were preserved as fossils. Another Christian response would be that of progressive creation. This seems to be the view of a number of faculty in the Christian College Consortium. According to this view, God created various “kinds” or organisms as the word “kind” seems to be used in Genesis. These kinds were major types, perhaps at the phylum level, which then proceeded to evolve over a period of time into the great array of different species, phyla, classes, orders, and families. But the original creation of kinds is implied.
Haas. People involved in origins-of-life studies are remarkably candid about their presuppositions and the tentativeness of their conclusions. And you have to remember that historical reconstruction of natural events poses problems that simply aren’t found in the typical laboratory investigation. That life arose in the distant past, from simple living forms emerging from increasingly complex molecules, is assumed. No other approach makes scientific sense.
Singer. You’re saying scientists have to assume that this is the way life originated.
Wright. Yes, that’s right. The evolutionary model is the only one.
Singer. You mean a scientist doesn’t have an alternative to assuming that?
Wright. That’s right. Not, at least, an alternative that can be considered on scientific grounds.
Singer. In suggesting explanations other than the evolutionist view, then, are you no longer acting as scientists?
Wright. No. But neither is the scientist who says all this has been brought about by chance. He doesn’t know this; science doesn’t allow us to make such statements. His approach to this question of chance versus design will be influenced by other elements of his world view.
Singer. As soon as you postulate some alternatives to the evolutionary view of origins, you’re no longer acting as a scientist.
Haas. No, I disagree. I’m functioning as a scientist, and I’m functioning as a person. The scientist is a person, and the scientist speaks out of the context of his personhood. His own presuppositions are going to be involved. I feel that my explanation of origins and of evolution is more valid than his. I know where all this came from.
Singer. So you’re saying that really there aren’t satisfying scientific answers, that this whole realm of creation and origins goes beyond the ability of science.
Haas. Yes. Certainly to establish what has happened in the past goes beyond the ability of science.
Singer. In a Harper’s article entitled “Darwin’s Mistake” [see page 12], Tom Bethell makes two points. One, by inference, is that Darwinian evolution assumes progress, that things move from disorganization to organization. Others have pointed out that this is in direct contradiction to the second law of thermodynamics.
Haas. That old chestnut again!
Wright. As long as you have a continual input of energy from outside the system, things can indeed move from disorganization to organization. It can look as if you’re going against the second law of thermodynamics.
Singer. His second argument is that Darwin’s theory of the survival of the fittest is a circular argument: we say the fittest survive, and we determine the fittest by looking at what has survived. This is another reason, Bethell says, why Darwinian evolution is quietly being dropped. Have you found it is being dropped?
Wright. No, not in the least. I haven’t seen any reference to this in any serious scientific journal, and certainly not in textbooks. I see Bethell’s point, however. You don’t have a good quantitative measurement, a good technique, let’s say, for measuring fitness other than seeing which organisms survive through time. We can determine non-fitness, for example, by seeing which organisms are more readily preyed upon by a predator. We can apply the concept of fitness, and say that from what we can tell from this particular organism’s environment, it’s good to look like a leaf, and so the guy that doesn’t look like a leaf is going to be more preyed upon. However, survival of the fittest has come to be understood as survival of the ones that reproduce successfully.
Singer. Well, would you say that the scientific community is now less enamored of Darwin? Is his influence waning?
Wright. The scientific community continues to be grateful to Darwin. The basic insights he gave us into the evolutionary processes we recognize to be an extremely important historical development. However, the fact that he had published his Origin of Species over a hundred years ago on the basis of the scientific knowledge of that day means that there’s going to have to be continual refinement, revision, reexamination of what he has said. A great deal has been added to what you would call the theories of evolution. In fact, people speak nowadays of neo-Darwinism, which means basic Darwinism informed by modern science.
Singer. In the argument from design, we say that we can see how the elements of creation followed a pattern of design. But isn’t design an a posteriori conclusion drawn out of what is?
Wright. That’s another kind of tautology, I guess. At some point, we started talking about the fact that there is design and a sense of orderliness in the creation. Certainly there is, in the functioning and existence of natural law. This design is often what attracts people, especially people who have looked into science thoroughly, to consider the Christian faith. A good number of Christian faculty members on secular campuses are in the sciences.
Singer. Let me read a statement put out by the American Humanist Society: “Evolution is the only presently known strictly scientific and non-religious explanation for the existence and diversity of living organisms. It is therefore the only view that should be expounded in public school courses on science which are distinct from those on religion.”
Haas. The first part is true. That’s what we have said. To go back to an earlier question that Dick answered: it’s my view that the supporters of fiat creation really base their case on a narrow reading of Scripture and a flagrant ignoring of the scientific evidence.
Singer. Do you agree that evolution is the only view that should be taught in public school courses on science?
Wright. The way it’s taught makes a whole lot of difference. Quite often it is presented as dogma rather than theory. That’s not good science.
Haas. I think not only the presuppositions of evolution but also its implications for other areas of life need to be examined. For instance, a high school biology teacher may say that evolution disproves the existence of the creating God; a statement like that certainly shouldn’t be imposed.
Wright. There is a tendency in these science textbooks, especially at the high school level, to absolutize things that a good scientist would never want to state absolutely.
Singer. They present evolution as a fact?
Wright. Many times scientists will talk about the fact of evolution. We may not completely understand the mechanisms, but many scientists simply don’t seriously question the idea that it has occurred. It simply is assumed.
Singer. You would say that a Christian alternative is not necessarily that the Bible provides us with another explanation but that the Bible tells us who devised the evolutionary process?
Wright. Yes, that’s true. The Bible gives us the identity of the creator and tells us why, in fact, he created things.
Singer. Why is it that the evidence for mechanistic evolution is so inconclusive? Since the scientific arguments sustaining non-theistic forms of evolution aren’t substantiated, isn’t this sufficient reason to consider seriously the Genesis account suggesting six twenty-four-hour days of creation?
Haas. When you say the evolutionary arguments can’t be substantiated, remember that evolution is a broad, encompassing perspective. There are details that may never be established simply because we haven’t the time frame to observe these changes. Evolution is a framework of views. Within this overall perspective, particular parts may change in the light of new evidence.
Singer. Science does not deny “providence” or “miracles”; it is just blind to them. We’ve talked about how scientists, in order to be scientists, have to look at things in a certain way. How are Christian science students asked to deal with miracles?
Haas. Some Christians have attempted to approach miracles with a statistical sort of argument, allowing God to operate in the normal context of nature, but I really have been unsatisfied with these kinds of approaches. I’m willing to accept what the biblical passage says on faith.
Singer. That God has chosen in these instances to go outside the normal processes that he otherwise uses?
Haas. Yes, that’s very definitely a possibility, but then we don’t know what he actually did.
Singer. Are there other options that you would present in the classroom?
Wright. I think a lot of people have spent a lot of time trying to explain how some of these miracles could have occurred under natural conditions, but it’s just speculation. We don’t know what happened. It doesn’t make it any less a miracle to me to think that God could have caused a whole sequence of natural events to occur simultaneously at some very specific point in time. That still is a miracle to me. I’m not saying that that’s how God performed miracles. He’s certainly not limited to using what we call natural means.
