So!  A large part of our conversation over pizza revolved around transitional forms, and Archeopteryx in particular, and whether any of this stuff was good evidence for evolution.

As Ziztur said yesterday, to try and make the entire scientific case for evolution theory here in a series of blog posts would be an exercise in futility.  So Dr. Charles Jackson asked for just a single decent example of a transitional fossil.  I threw out Archeopteryx, just to see what he thought about it.

It was pretty disappointing.  It was the same old thing you hear from Creationists – “So what if it was a little like theropod dinosaurs in some ways, it’s still just a slightly odd bird!”

I have two main points about this conversation about transitional forms.

Firstly, the only exclusively reptilian feature of Archeopteryx that I mentioned was the teeth.  You see, I’ve obviously looked at Arch. before, and I could have sworn that there was a pretty long list of such reptilian features, but I haven’t really looked at it in a while, or studied it in-depth.  So in the middle of a random conversation with a Young-Earth Creationist at a pizza joint, I couldn’t specifically remember or explain any real reptile features aside from the teeth.  Thus, I specifically refrained from stating that Arch. had more reptilian features besides the teeth, since I couldn’t pony up on the spot.

If you haven’t seen it, check out my first post about this conversation.  Dr. Charles Jackson basically put out a picture of himself being very, very familiar with Arch.  Familiar enough, at least, that he was perfectly comfortable with completely dismissing it as a potential transitional form.

Not once did he mention any other reptilian feature of Arch. besides the teeth.

*Sigh*  Dr. Jackson, I had really high hopes for you!  You actually had my ear and my respect at a few points during your Q&A session.  I always try to give people, even people that I strongly disagree with, the benefit of the doubt.  With you, though, I actually held out sincere hope that you’d turn out to be more honest than other “professional” creationists that I’ve talked to.

If Dr. Jackson really was that familiar with Arch., he simply had to be aware of the numerous other reptilian features.  Why didn’t he mention them?  This goes back to what I said the other day, about transitional forms in general.  Dr. Jackson, you stated flat-out that there were no transitional forms.  This backfired, because anybody can look for themselves and see instantly that there are huge lists of transitional forms.  You asked for a specific example, and I mentioned Archeopteryx.  You said that it’s simply a bird.  I said that it has teeth.  You basically replied, “Teeth?  That’s it?  One single reptilian feature that isn’t shared with modern birds isn’t even remotely enough to call it a ‘transitional form.’  I hope you have a better example than that!”

Well, now we can actually look at data and see how well this criticism holds up.  Oh, look.  Archeopteryx’s skull attached to the spine at the rear, like theropod dinosaurs (and modern reptiles).  Modern birds’ skulls attach squarely at the base.  Arch. has a long, bony tail.  A tail structure which is universal to theropod dinosaurs, but is completely absent from modern birds.  Dr. Jackson stated that Arch. had “full flight capability.”  It didn’t.  Modern birds need a bare minimum 30% flight-muscle mass of their total weight to achieve full flight.  Arch. had about 9%, which is consistent with theropod dinosaurs.  On and on and on.

You didn’t mention any of this.  Why?

Now, my second point about this conversation.  Possibly my favorite line of the day.  First, a little background.  At Dr. Charles Jackson’s speaking engagements, his business partner mans a vast table of Creationist resources nearby.  He was the first person who greeted us when we arrived at the church.  We introduced ourselves as the heathens who were looking forward to finding out why we rage.  He asked for specifics, and we clarified that we are, in fact, atheists.

I kid you not, his opening line was, “So, you’re certain that there’s no God?”  Yeah, you can probably tell how that went.

Later, when we said our goodbyes, he said, “You mentioned earlier that you have a problem with Biblical morality.  Let me ask you this:  Have you ever considered that maybe the creator of the universe has more of a right to decide morality than you?  Have you ever thought about it like that?”

I don’t want to insult him, but he honestly had a very . . . condescending way of putting things.  Imagine those one-liners stated with chest puffed out, arms crossed, eyes narrow, technically with the sentence structure of questions, but actually stated as declarations.  I almost got the impression that he had spent his whole life reading Creationist material, but had never actually read anything by or talked to a serious atheist thinker.  “Wow, this is, like, a slam-dunk against evolution/atheism!”  It seemed like he expected these talking points to completely floor us, and convert us on the spot.  I don’t want to judge the guy, he probably means well.  That’s just how he comes across.

Anyway, here’s my little quote of the day.  Randomly, in the middle of this talk about transitional forms, he folds his arms, looks me right in the eyes, the whole nine yards, and says, “Are you really going to bet your whole life, eternity, on Archeopteryx?”

I lol’ed.

At least, I was really close.  I struggled to keep from bursting out laughing, and did achieve some modicum of self-control.

The thing is, I think that this beautifully illustrates the problem with their thinking.  Dr. Jackson’s whole criticism of Arch. was predicated on inspiring a sliver of doubt.  Even if we discard all the reptilian features that I didn’t recall on the spot and that he left out, his argument still boils down to “But Arch. could be an odd bird with teeth.  It’s ambiguous.  It’s not 100% proof of evolution at all!”

The problem with that argument is that . . . I agree.  Archeopteryx is absolutely not 100% proof of evolution.  There’s no way I would accept evolution theory on a few fossils of this one organism alone.

The only way that Dr. Jackson’s argument means anything at all is alongside the implication that Arch. needs to be totally unambiguous proof, all on it’s own.  And that if Arch. isn’t a slam-dunk proof all on it’s own, if there is any possibility that it’s just “an odd bird with teeth,” then we should completely discard it.

This kind of thinking is practically the opposite of the scientific method.

Archeopteryx is evidence, yes.  It’s pretty good evidence, even.  But it’s the tiniest fraction of the whole case for evolution.  In real science, you don’t get a single observation that “proves” a theory correct, with no doubt (what we have in this case is a single fact, or a single observation, not even a theory at all).  Archeopteryx is a little bit of evidential support.  The next transitional form is a little bit more.  The next, a bit more.  After a while, maybe a very long while, you have a mountain of evidential support, and no observations that falsify the main thrust of the theory.  That’s what we have in the case for evolution, and that’s how science rolls.

In this next installment of our Fosterburg Church Faith Infiltration, we’re going to find out why Dr. Charles Jackson thinks the heathen rage. If you want to read about other Faith Infiltrations we have done, click the Faith infiltration category at the bottom of this post.

I expected this presentation to be kind of like Dr. Brad Harrub’s presentation on “Atheist’s Attack on America.” Dr. Jackson opened his presentation by saying that he would talk for about 20 minutes and then have people ask questions – he wanted the congregation to ask tough questions and not softball him – to him, people should not be afraid to question the Bible, because if one is afraid, he said, then there is a little dark hole in your faith. He told the congregation not to be afraid to stump him, as he would not be embarrassed by hard questions. He also joked, “I don’t know everything… it just seems that way.”

He began his presentation:

“We’ve just proved there is a god. We’ve just proved that evolution isn’t true, so why do people still continue to not believe in a god? What is the logic – what is going on – Why are people evolutionists and atheists?”

Wow, this guy proved there is a god and disproved the foundations of biology in a one hour presentation at a church? These are questions philosophers and scientists have been debating forever, I am so sorry that I missed this historical moment.

So here we go, here’s why we rage:

He quoted Darwin as saying, “I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science.” The quote, displayed in a powerpoint, was cited as being from Charles Darwin and the Problem of Creation, N.C. Gillespie, p.2.

Dr. Jackson, you really should not quote this uncritically without checking the source, it undermines your credibility.  Here is an explanation of the correct source, as well as additional information showing that this is a clear example of quote-mining.

Moving on, he told the congregation that Richard Dawkins wrote in the New York Times in 1989 that “It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I’d rather not consider that).”

True, he did write that. But do you know what he wrote after that? This…

“If that gives you offense, I’m sorry. You are probably not stupid, insane or wicked; and ignorance is no crime in a country with strong local traditions of interference in the freedom of biology educators to teach the central theorem of their subject. I recently toured East Coast radio stations, doing phone-ins. I came away optimistic. I had expected hostile barracking from creationists with closed minds. Instead, what I found was genuine curiosity and honest interest. I got sincere questions from intelligent people who really wanted to know because they had literally no education in evolution.”

“I don’t think it is too melodramatic to say that civilization is at war. It is a war against religious bigotry. In Britain recently our newspapers have shown crowds of fundamentalists (they happen to be Muslim rather than Christian, but in this context the distinction is of no importance) baying for the death of the distinguished novelist Salman Rushdie, displaying his effigy with its eyes put out and publicly burning his books. The truly appalling thing all such people have in common, whether they are incited to murder by ayatollahs or to less violent observances by television evangelists, is that they know, for certain, that their particular brand of revealed truth is absolute and needs no reasoned defense. In Iran I don’t suppose evolution is even an issue, but in the United States a case can be made that it is right there on the front line.”

“If you feel even vaguely in the mood to stand up and be counted, evolution is a pretty good issue on which to take your stand. It is an excellent standard-bearer for reason and the gentle virtues of civilization. This is because the more you read, quietly and soberly, the evidence for evolution, the more powerful will you discover that evidence to be. You are as safe taking your stand on the fact of evolution as you would be on the fact that the earth goes round the sun. But the latter is not — any longer — at stake in the war against fundamentalism. Evolution is on the front line because it is an important issue disputed by fundamentalists, and you can be completely confident that you can easily prove them wrong.

Dr Jackson’s response was, “This is not an example of being open minded. This is not how scientists talk. I am living proof that he’s wrong. The inventor of the MRI is a creationist. There are 10,000 creationists in the science field. Okay and we’re not ignorant either. I mentioned to you I have four college degrees. All in science and education. So I am certainly not uneducated. If anything I am overeducated. I am a lifetime member of MENSA.”

Okay, so Dawkins wrote in a review of a book that evolution was an obvious fact in the same way that it is a fact that the earth rotates around the sun. If Dr. Jackson has a problem with him making this outright claim to fact, then he is a hypocrite. He did the very same thing at the beginning of his talk, stating as fact that he proved there was a god and that he proved evolution was not true.

It is unfortunate happenstance that Dawkins’ leaves out the fact that he, like myself, finds the truth of evolution (and the sun) to be provisional and based on probability, rather than absolute fact. Alas, sometimes people are forced to edit out these nuances when under the pressure of character limitations, as one would be in a newspaper clipping. So perhaps Dr. Jackson has a problem with calling a-evolutionists ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked. Dawkins later clarifies that most people are probably not stupid, insane or wicked (and surely, there are some stupid people who deny evolution, and some insane people who deny evolution, and some wicked people who deny evolution) but ignorant – and by that he obviously means ignorant of evolution, given that it is taught more by the people who deny it than the people who accept it.

Dr. Jackson went on to say, “and now I am going to use scripture to go through so we can understand “why do the heathen rage?” why are there atheists, why are there evolutionists, what’s going on. As usual, the scripture actually answers the question. I’ve also got some actual quotes from atheists. I’m not making fun of their beliefs but telling you why.” He then presented this comic:

Translation: we’re atheists so we can be wicked.

Oh, so it’s wrong/close minded/unscientific for Dawkins to come out and suggest that one of the reasons people deny evolution is because of their wickedness, but then your first talking point about why people are atheists is a suggestion that they are atheists because they are wicked? If it’s wrong for Dawkins to suggest it, it’s also wrong for Dr. Jackson to suggest it. I don’t often say things this bluntly but – that’s hypocritical, Dr. Jackson.

He quoted Darwin again, “A man who has no assured and ever-present belief in the existence of a personal God, or of a future existence with retribution and reward, can have for his rule of life, as far as I can see, only to follow those impulses and instincts which are the strongest or which seem to him the best ones.

Apparently this quote is supposed to mean that atheism/evolution leads to immorality. Dr. Jackson, quote-mining undermines your credibility. Darwin meant just the opposite, a fact that is clear when you quote the whole thing.

“I cannot pretend to throw the least light on such abstruse problems. The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble by us; and I for one must be content to remain an Agnostic.”

“A man who has no assured and ever present belief in the existence of a personal God or of a future existence with retribution and reward, can have for his rule of life, as far as I can see, only to follow those impulses and instincts which are the strongest or which seem to him the best ones. A dog acts in this manner, but he does so blindly. A man, on the other hand, looks forwards and backwards, and compares his various feelings, desires and recollections. He then finds, in accordance with the verdict of all the wisest men that the highest satisfaction is derived from following certain impulses, namely the social instincts. If he acts for the good of others, he will receive the approbation of his fellow men and gain the love of those with whom he lives ; and this latter gain undoubtedly is the highest pleasure on this earth. By degrees it will become intolerable to him to obey his sensuous passions rather than his higher impulses, which when rendered habitual may be almost called instincts. His reason may occasionally tell him to act in opposition to the opinion of others, whose approbation he will then not receive ; but he will still have the solid satisfaction of knowing that he has followed his innermost guide or conscience.–As for myself I believe that I have acted rightly in steadily following and devoting my life to science. I feel no remorse from having committed any great sin, but have often and often regretted that I have not done more direct good to my fellow creatures. My sole and poor excuse is much ill-health and my mental constitution, which makes it extremely difficult for me to turn from one subject or occupation to another. I can imagine with high satisfaction giving up my whole time to philanthropy, but not a portion of it; though this would have been a far better Line of conduct.”

One of the reasons I rage is because of nasty stuff like this – quotes taken out of context and clearly mined and then extrapolated to instill fear and hatred for an entire group of people because of differences in belief. I rage because I value honesty, compassion and integrity, and quote-mining is none of those.

Moving on, Dr. Jackson quoted “Darwin’s great great grandson” as saying, ““I don’t believe in God: how could I, given my great great grandfather’s theories? But perhaps I would feel happier if I did. Just because I have rejected conventional religion, it does not mean there isn’t a void to be filled.” Darwin’s gg-grandson is Randall Keynes. Apparently this quote is taken from some unnamed article in the UK Sunday Times on November 12^th, 2000. I can’t find this article, and the only source of this quote appears to be at this creationism website.  It’s a very interesting “fact file” they have there.

He told his congregation that many people who believe in evolution are not atheists, but that if you are an atheist then there is nothing left for you to believe but evolution.

Why the false dichotomy doc? I could come up with all sorts of theories as to why there is diversity in life that is neither evolution via natural selection nor appeals to any kind of god. Like creationism, none of them stand up to the scientific method and/or falsifiability, nor do they have a mechanism:

1. The Quantum Change Theory: organisms can change their population using quantum energy fields by the collective act of willing themselves to adapt so that they can survive.
2. The Spontaneous Generation Theory: animals just spontaneously generate acausally.
3. The Observation Theory: organisms only exist because we have the capacity to observe them. Our observation of animals directly causes their diversity in a giant universal circle of looking.
4. The Always Theory: diverse organisms have always existed in the universe.
5. Exogenesis: the building blocks of life were sprinkled on earth by a space hurricane
6. The 747 Theory: a huge storm assembled the organisms.
7. The Atom theory: The spontaneous splitting of atoms forms new organisms.
8. The Rain Theory: organisms fall from the sky when it rains.
9. The Ghost Theory: all organisms arise from the single splitting of one soul into countless souls.
10. The Pheonix Theory: organisms that die catch on fire and then out of their ashes, new organisms arise.

Dr. Jackson quoted Thomas Nagel, saying that the following quote offers excellent insight into how atheists think: “I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God and, naturally, hope that I’m right in my belief. It’s that I hope there is no God! I don’t want there to be a God; I don’t want the universe to be like that.”

Seemingly, the connection that Dr. Jackson wants his congregation to make here is that Thomas Nagel wants there to be no god so he can go on being wicked.

Thomas Nagel also said, “it is just as irrational to be influenced in one’s beliefs by the hope that God does not exist as by the hope that God does exist,” in the same essay from which the original quote is quothed. In other words, what he wants and what is real are two different things. Don’t you want there to be a god, Dr. Jackson?

Okay, this has gotten long enough for now – stay tuned for more!

The following post is a guest post by a friend of mine, Lance, from St. Louis, who writes here and the Europe Travelblog. If you’ve got something to say but don’t want to start a whole blog to say it, then hit me up with your idea and I’ll probably post it here. Enjoy!

A few weeks ago, my alma mater’s Assembly Series hosted a lecture by Pulitzer Prize-winning historian Edward Larson on the topic “From Dayton to Dover: A Brief History of the Evolution Teaching Controversy in the U.S.” I really enjoyed the talk as an overview of the evolution vs. creation debate over the past century or so.

The main structure was an analysis of the three strategies that anti-Evolution activists have used over the years:

1. Removing evolution from the classroom

2. Balancing evolution with some form of creationist instruction

3. Teaching that evolution itself is “just a theory”

This part of the discussion was dominated by analysis of the famous Scopes Monkey Trial, which Larson pointed out was not a resounding victory for the pro-evolution forces (in fact, Scopes was convicted) and was brought by the town of Dayton, TN as a publicity stunt that grew out of control. Both of those points contradict the impression of the trial given by Inherit the Wind.

More interesting for me was the revelation that the debate over teaching evolution in public schools was not initially a fight between Christians and atheists, as the debate is now generally depicted. Instead, it started out in the late 1800s as a theological debate within Christianity, between the Modernists, who adapted their traditional beliefs to scientific discovery, and the Fundamentalists, who insisted that Biblical literalism trumped any notion of discovered fact. So, before the 1947 Supreme Court decision that extended the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause to the states, the debate in public schools was not whether to teach a religious viewpoint on our origins, but instead was focused on which religious viewpoint to teach. Since in the debate today you hear so much about the “evil atheists” who are trying to force evolution down everyone’s throat, I was surprised to hear that it started as a Christian argument.

Balancing evolution with some form of creationist instruction

After the Supreme Court clarified that the Fourteenth Amendment extended the First Amendment to the schools in the 1940s, the debate was quiet in the schools for a while; since evolution was the only game in town that claimed the mantle of science, it was the only option for schools (actually, there was the additional option of avoiding the topic and controversy completely, which Larson said was the primary choice).

That changed in 1961, with the publication of “The Genesis Flood” by Henry Morris, which created the concept of “Creation Science”. Of course, the ideas presented in the book were nonsense from a scientific perspective, but that didn’t really matter. The main effect was that Creationism now had a scientific veneer, no matter how fraudulent, and that veneer was enough to lead several states to require teaching creationism along side evolution as “balance”.

Fortunately, the Supreme Court again clarified the situation with the Edwards v. Aguillard decision, which prohibited teaching creationism as science because it’s really just religion and not at all science.

Teaching that evolution itself is “just a theory”

Since the Supreme Court had ruled that directly teaching religion was unacceptable and that only science should be taught in public school science curricula, the next effort was to change the definition of science itself.

Here, Larson discussed the Intelligent Design (ID) movement and its further attempt to make religion look like science. Larson pointed out that ID isn’t really science (it makes no predictions, it isn’t falsifiable, etc.) but is really a philosophical argument. The claim of ID is that science itself is wrong because it looks only for naturalistic or materialistic answers to the questions it asks. However, this isn’t a weakness of science, it’s a strength. As Michael Behe, one of the main leaders of the ID movement, himself admitted on the stand in the Kitzmiller v. Dover case, a definition of science expansive enough to include ID would also include astrology. With naturalism, we have Chemistry; without it, we have alchemy.

Larson discussed the Dover case (in which a public school board used church funds to buy Creationist textbooks that had been rebranded as ID books) and similar modern cases. Fortunately, in all these cases, the courts have upheld that only science be taught in science classes.

Conclusion

Larson’s talk was a bit rushed, but the crowd really seemed to enjoy the history, laughing with surprise at some of the gambits that have been attempted over the years. I would suspect that the vast majority of the crowd agreed with the pro-evolution perspective, not only because this was at a top university (though Larson pointed out that a colleague at Cornell said a third of his biology class rejected evolution walking in the door), but also due to self-selection on the material.

Even if he was “preaching to the choir,” I think it was an important topic, because science and engineering students need to understand more than just the facts of science; they also need to understand the context and history of the debate in America today. Evolution isn’t controversial in college or in research, but it is controversial in the political arena. To be successful in that arena, information like what Dr. Larson presented is vital.

P.S. At the lecture, I bought a copy of his Pulitzer Prize-winning book about the Scopes Trial, Summer for the Gods: The Scopes Trial and America’s Continuing Debate Over Science and Religion. I haven’t had a chance to dig into yet, but I flipped through it a bit and noticed that the 12-page Afterword was obviously the script that he used for the lecture, with many sections of his talk lifted directly from the text. So, if you want more on this topic, that book and its afterword are a good summary.

I got this email a few weeks ago!

Ziztur,

Well, I just finished my 4th seminar with Dr. Harrub, and I think we agree on one thing… He can pack in the information. You may or may not agree with any or all, but your name popped up in a google search and I wanted to find out what were you top 5 issues with Dr. Harrub. I was looking for some of your blogs on his subjects.

I do have some questions, and I know you don’t have to reply, but would you help me out with this question?

Are there only three possibilities for the universe beginning?

1. It didn’t begin but always was..

2. It came into existence from nothing…

3. God created it..

You know I picked number 3, what do you think?

Will you carry on a conversation with me?

I didn’t really want to be so formal. So here are some things about me. Last year I spent some time in St. Louis installing Glow Golfs in several malls around St. Louis. (I don’t think they made it, putt putt that glows in the dark.)  I did enjoy my time there. I am married and have two children. I probably would agree that environment growing up had a big influence on my life. You grew up as you wrote in a secular home and I grew up in a Christian home. I would imagine both of us grew up in loving families. I totally think ziztur is cool and shows a positive relationship in your family. You’re probably tired of me by now… So, if  you don’t mind when you have time drop me an email. I would look forward to your thoughts.

Humbly seeking the truth.

P.S. I would definitely check out my posts on Brad Harrub’s seminars – they are some of my best stuff!

 3H1P is a blogging project wherein three heathens (Ziztur, Flimsy and Petter) and one pastor (Keith) answer questions posed by readers of the blog and discuss various issues related to religion, philosophy, science, etc. If you have a question that you’d like to see answered by 3H1P, ask it in the comment box. We promise we’ll probably get to it.

I know this question was meant for Pastor Keith, but I decided to go ahead and answer it, too.

Reader Mitch asks:

I’ve read that most Christians are ok with evolution. But the truth of evolution shows that the story of Adam and Eve in the Garden is a myth, hence there was no “Fall”, no “Original Sin”. Without “Original Sin” there is no need for “Salvation”. Jesus is pointless. So, how can a Christian accept evolution?

I would like to question the initial premise of this question that most Christians are okay with evolution. I’m glad that you prefaced this factoid with “I’ve read” rather than simply proclaiming it as a fact – it shows that you’re likely to know the difference between what people claim and what is actually true.

According to every reputable public opinion polling establishment out there, most American Christians are not okay with evolution. According to the Pew forum, only 6% of evangelical Christians, 31% of mainline Christians, and 25% of Catholics in he US believe that “humans and other living things evolved over time through natural selection” (in 2006). According to the Gallup poll, 24% of people who attend church weekly or more accept evolution – though it does not say that they accept evolution in its entirety. People who are both Christian and accept evolution fall squarely in the minority, and I can imagine that an even tinier portion of Christians both fully accept evolution and fully believe in a literal interpretation of the Garden.Of course, as fellow blogger Marc_Newcomb points out, this says nothing about Christians outside the US. Do most Christians believe in evolution? I’m not entirely sure.

Regardless, the meat of your question is still important. How can a Christian accept evolution? I’m not a Christian, but in my experience most Christians who accept evolution accept a blend of both Christianity and evolution in such a way that the level of cognitive dissonance is not so much that they are winning the Dissonance Olympics with their impressive brain gymnastics.

I would imagine that one can accept in evolution on a continuum from total confidence in evolution to total rejection, with many varieties of partial acceptance in between. We can even plot this on a totally unscientific but still useful graph:

There are a lot of people out there who consider evolution to be true, but that it was guided by the hand of their god. These people are more likely to believe that the Garden story is mythical, but can still believe that we are all sinners by nature and need salvation. They could believe “Adam and Eve” are allegories for the human race, or any number of different things. So I don’t think that evolution and Christianity are necessarily in conflict with each other, depending on what parts of which you accept. Obviously, a literalist interpretation of the Bible is in conflict. If you believe that the world was created in 6 literal days, then to accept evolution in addition to the literal creation story is to accept that Billy is both sixty years old and two days old.

3H1P is a blogging project wherein three heathens (Ziztur, Flimsy and Petter) and one pastor (Keith) answer questions posed by readers of the blog and discuss various issues related to religion, philosophy, science, etc. If you have a question that you’d like to see answered by 3H1P, ask it in the comment box. We promise we’ll probably get to it. The following is Pastor Keith’s response to this question:

Hi, this is for Pastor Keith. I’ve read that most Christians are ok with evolution. But the truth of evolution shows that the story of Adam and Eve in the Garden is a myth, hence there was no “Fall”, no “Original Sin”. Without “Original Sin” there is no need for “Salvation”. Jesus is pointless. So, how can a Christian accept evolution? -Mitch

Thanks for the question and for the opportunity to address it. In order to attempt an answer to your overall question – “How can a Christian accept evolution?” – I must first make an adjustment to one of the fundamental assumptions in your request.

The assumption that without “Original Sin” there is no need for “Salvation” is a misunderstanding of the breadth of theology under the heading of “Christian.” Numerous theologies are dependent on the concept of original sin, but numerous theologies also disregard the concept of original sin. The issue itself is not universally agreed on in the church at large. So, whether the Genesis account supports the doctrine of original sin or not, the doctrine itself is not essential to Christianity. This is evidenced by the fact that many churches and denominations talk about “salvation” without believing the doctrine of original sin. I can go into more detail on this issue, but I believe it would detract from your larger question … which I will get on to now ?.

Given that the only way to stop evolution is extinction, I’m a huge fan of evolution. I’m both grateful for it and willing participant in it. I am not only “ok” with evolution, but a fan of it. Said another way, accepting evolution has had the same amount of negative impact on my faith as accepting gravity has.

I believe in creation and in God as the first cause, but I do not believe in creationism. The fossil record, plate tectonics, comparative anatomy, etc. all point to evolution. Everything we can understand from the world around at this point suggests that the world is not 6000 years old. I am humble enough to know that I am not the most scientifically knowledgeable man on the planet … and I will trust those who are more knowledgeable to be competent and sincere.

I do know a little about Scripture. I know that the book of Genesis was written to detail the Israelite tribes’ common history … it is not a science textbook. I know that the Hebrew word “yom” is translated as “day” in most Bibles even though it can be translated as “period of time” (and is in fact translated as such in other parts of the Old Testament). In fact, the more detailed creation account in Genesis two shows Adam classifying the species in between the time where he was created and where Eve was created. This surely took at least a lifetime to accomplish, and yet that same time period was considered a “day” in Genesis 1. I am humble enough to think that translators do not get every variable of an ancient Hebrew text 100% correct.

Humility also points to the fact that science changes over time. This is one of science’s great strengths … it is continually self-correcting and growing. However, I hold my current understanding of evolution loosely enough to allow continued learning. In the same way, one of theology’s greatest strengths is its willingness to self-correct over time. Information flows more freely today than ever before, and one does not have to get their spiritual information from a lone interpreter today.

Evolution does not change my opinion of God as the source of life. I think the complexity and beauty of evolution only enhances my esteem for God. Please allow me to draw a couple of spiritual lessons that I see echoed in evolution that show how my belief in evolution enhances my faith.

First let me steal an example from my friend Siamang. If one man fights one bear, the man has roughly 0% chance of survival. If fifty men fight one bear, the bear has roughly 0% of survival. That human beings continue to survive and thrive is not because we are the strongest, but largely because we form among the tightest bonds of any creature. We have survived by banding together. Note my previous post about how I believe the underlying purpose of this universe is to objectively affirm love: I see the survival of humanity as a testimony to the power of love. It is because of our bonds that we survive. Thus, I find evolution and my faith in total alignment.

Secondly, I think that science as an exploration of the world is an act of worship for me. Through science we have discovered a universe more elegant, grand, and complex that ever imagined. If there is a God – and I believe there is – how could such exploration be anything but honoring to that God? I am spiritually alive when I am contemplating Annie Dillard’s spiritual lessons from nature, or reading an article on quantum theory. I am spiritually alive when I listen to my sons reason together as to why an earthworm does not have eyes.

My boys were discussing earthworms last night. They tossed around several theories as to why earthworms do not have eyes. They thought the earthworm they were examining had had his eyes poked out, but then they noticed that none of the earthworms had eyes. They explored other options, nearly all of them containing a grain of truth, with none of them quite centering it. My efforts at understanding how life as I know it today came about are similar. I mull lots of theories, nearly all containing some value … and yet I still do not have it perfectly centered. So I am humble. I believe in God and I follow Jesus. I affirm evolution and I trust scientists. And I am humble enough not only to see no reason why a person cannot do all of those, but also find them working together to call me to a lifetime of testimony to the power of love.