Christians’ Unnecessary Rejection of Evolution: An Introduction to the Debate (Guest post by David T. Moscrip)

A popular, and often heated, debate that is largely unique to the USA is the issue of origins. Did God create everything in a literal six-day period? Did a random series of events lead to an evolutionary process that brought about everything we see today over millions of years? Often these questions are presented as being in direct conflict with each other.

The contention that Darwinian evolution or any other scientific theory somehow presents a direct challenge to the Christian faith is simply false. A sad side-effect of this conflict is that it has diminished the rich meaning of the biblical creation narrative. Rather than seeking to understand the significance of the first three chapters of Genesis, we have limited their meaning to a solely literal interpretation. Ultimately, this insistence has placed unnecessary hurdles in the path of those seeking the Christian faith. Scientists should not be forced to choose between their faith and their findings or theories, and Christians should not live in fear that origin theories could somehow cause the unraveling of their beliefs. The purpose of this paper is to illustrate how both faith and science can be embraced at once. A Christian can retain the most high view of the Bible and still be open to scientific theories regarding our physical reality. [For the purposes of this paper, I will refer to everything physical as “Creation,” but this should not be taken as implying a specific position regarding the evolution and six-day debates.]

Six-Day Creation: Fact or Myth?

If I were to tell a story about my child having a funny conversation with me during a long trip, I may condense the timing. I would likely leave out factors that make the story historically accurate, such as rate of speed, scenery, location, other drivers on the road, songs on the radio, etc., because my intention is to convey an interaction between myself and one of my children. While there may be an accurate retelling of some events that play into the story, historical accuracy is not my purpose. It is the same with the telling of any information; there is always something the storyteller is trying to communicate. There is always a purpose for the story.

Opposing parties in the United States will often debate as if only two options exist regarding the creation account in Genesis, or the Bible in its entirety, either: (1) Historical Fact or (2) Mythical Fiction. The problem with these categories is that neither communicates the mindset by which ancient writers would have recorded events. If I were to say that the six days of creation were historically factual, then you would take me to mean that I believe God made everything we see in six morning-to-evening periods. If I were to say the creation account is myth, you would probably take it to mean that I believe the Genesis account is a work of fiction being told out of a desire to explain what could not be understood at the time. These labels not only create a major hurdle to open discussions between the faith and science communities, but also within members of those communities themselves. We have erected barriers that need not exist. It is not necessary to alienate either side. Just like scientific methodology, there is a methodical way to approach the Bible. One of those methodologies that must be understood is that the Bible is interpreting history for the purpose of revealing God to man.[1] If we choose to objectively categorize the biblical text as being either historically accurate or unreliable, then we have missed the point.[2] 

Historical Views of the Church

Issues of faith and science were not seen as opposed by influential Christian leaders in their eras throughout the history of the faith. Every historical event is recounted for a purpose. Every recording of history will necessarily leave out various aspects. Origen of Alexandria, Augustine of Hippo, and Thomas Aquinas are all revered as brilliant theologians by Christians both in their day and still today. These three influential figures did not think it was destructive to their faith to entertain various thoughts on origin.

Origen (184-253) is considered a Church Father in that he is widely regarded as one of the most important theologians in history. He founded a school that taught logic, cosmology, and theology. He was tortured for his faith and later died from his injuries. He believed the creation accounts in the first two chapters of Genesis to be the telling of how the inner and the outer – spiritual and physical – persons were formed by God.[3] Origen believed the first three chapters of Genesis tell a story of how societies and cultures develop.

Augustine (354-430) was an Early Church Bishop in North Africa. He was a theologian, philosopher, and prolific writer. Western society owes much of its philosophical heritage to Augustine’s City of God, an outline of God’s kingdom on earth and human government. Augustine wrote often in amazement of God’s creation. He wondered if all things were created as they exist, or if God designed and then set creative forces - formless physical and spiritual masses - into motion, then chose various times at which to enlighten His creation.[4] Augustine believed that the phrase, “Let there be light,” found in Genesis 1:3, referred to a spiritual illumination.[5] He did not seem to believe that creation as a gradual formation and God as Creator were mutually exclusive views.

Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) provided a biblical response and perspective to many of the cultural issues of his day. He was inspired greatly by the earlier writings of Augustine. Aquinas’ Summa Theologiae is a series of various objections to Christian belief. Summa Theologiae is a work that is still studied by any serious student of theology. Aquinas argues that the creative days in the first chapter of Genesis are for the purpose of distinguishing stages of God’s creative work. Aquinas writes:

“The works of distinction and adornment imply certain changes in the creature which are measurable by time; whereas the work of creation lies only in the Divine act producing the substance of beings instantaneously. For this reason, therefore, every work of distinction and adornment is said to take place ‘in a day,’ but creation ‘in the beginning’ which denotes something indivisible.”[6] 

Modern Views of the Church

The intensity of this particular debate is mainly confined to the political and denominational landscape of beliefs that developed in the mid-to-late 1800’s in the United States. This new system of Christian beliefs resulted in a fundamentalist movement within the faith. Fundamentalism requires a strict adherence to their system of beliefs and a mentality of “you are either with us or against us” toward those who differ. Fundamentalists have bought into the idea that we must either fully adhere to the Bible and creationism, because the alternative is atheism and evolution.

It is not this way in a majority of the world, and many pastors and theologians outside of the United States have spoken extensively about this oddity that exists in the U.S.A. The reality is that many influential and respected Christian theologians and leaders today, as throughout history, are open to varying interpretations of the biblical creation account. Today, there are many Christian pastors, biblical scholars, theologians, and philosophers who see no conflict between biblical authority and scientific discoveries about the cosmos. John Ortberg, Tremper Longman III, Scot McKnight, N.T. Wright, and Timothy Keller are just a few of the Christian leaders who have spoken up against the hostility and misunderstandings that exist from an understanding of the Bible that results in hostility toward the science community. However, there are still fundamentalist groups within Christianity asserting the dichotomy of these views.

A Sensible Approach

It is my belief that the broadest boundaries possible should be adopted in order to include as many people as possible seeking to join the Christian community, while still remaining faithful to the nature of Christianity. Both creation ex nihilo and imago dei are the boundaries which should be observed in order to make sense of the entirety of the Bible’s message of the redemption of mankind. Creation ex nihilo is the belief that an eternal God is the creative source of all things, but it does not distinguish the method by which God created. Incidentally, this is also what Charles Darwin argued and outlined in the closing lines of Origin of Species. Imago dei is the belief that man carries the image of God.

Finally, if we believe that God is the source of everything and that every human is an image-bearer of that God, then we will be left with no other option but to respond in awe of God and humility toward others. I’m afraid that my fellow Christians who fail to set broad boundaries regarding lesser issues, such as the method God chose to create – whether gradual or instantaneous, will continue to use our differences as weapons. The solution is to return to the openness exemplified by leaders in the Early Church, who were committed to understanding the intended meaning of scripture. They did not see scientific incorporation as a rejection of their faith. They viewed the expanding human understanding of God’s creation through science as a method by which to more fully understand what they read in their holy Scripture.

About the Author: David Moscrip has been writing about social issues from a Christian perspective for over fifteen years. He holds a Bachelor’s in Theology from Faith Christian College and is currently pursuing a Master’s in Divinity from Knox Theological Seminary. His work with government agencies around the world to advocate for ethical policies, especially regarding human trafficking, has given him a depth of experience from which to write. Originally from Indianapolis, Indiana, he now resides in Tampa, Florida where he works as a strategy consultant for religious, civic, and political organizations. He may be reached through his website www.wonderfullyplagued.com.

[1] Bruce K. Waltke, An Old Testament Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007), 31

[2] Katheryn Applegate/J.B. Stump, How I Changed My Mind About Evolution: Evangelicals Reflect on Faith and Science (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2016), 130-137

[3] Jacobsen, Anders-Christian. (2008). Genesis 1-3 as Source for the Anthropology of Origen. Vigiliae Christianae.

[4] St. Augustine of Hippo, Confessions, 12.12.15, 13.2.3, 13.2.4

[5] St. Augustine of Hippo, Confessions, 13.3.4

[6] Aquinas, Summa Theologia, Q74 A1