Sermon from February 13, 2005

I am just curious. How many of you have read Charles Darwin’s book, On the Origin of the Species? Would you mind raising your hand? How many of you have read Stephen Jay Gould’s book, The Evolution of Life on Earth or Theodosius Dobzhansky’s book, Mankind Evolving?

These are seminal writings on the theory of evolution. Isn’t something amiss, when we disagree sharply with a scientific theory, and we have not read the most authoritative expositions of that theory? We don’t like it when someone criticizes the Bible, who has never read the Bible. Don’t we leave ourselves open to the same charge by never having read these or similar books?

I am not trying to be harsh with you. I haven’t read Darwin or Stephen Gould, although I did read Dobzhansky and a textbook on evolution as part of a course on evolution I once took at Syracuse University. This is a conversation among friends, who care deeply about tensions between the Christian faith and the natural sciences.

We also care deeply about truth, and my awkward questions about what we have read were a kindly-intentioned effort to help us face a potentially embarrassing gap in our knowledge. I don’t know that you should rush out and read these books; but maybe we could be more restrained and less strident in what we say about evolution.

“And what,” you may be asking, “are you doing, pastor, talking about evolution? You said back in September that you were going to preach on the doctrine of creation and not talk about evolution. Have you changed your mind? If so, why did you do that?”

I have changed my mind. I did so because a men’s small group approached me and asked if I would be willing to talk to them about creation and evolution. I agreed to do that, and as soon as I thought about what I had agreed to do, I knew that, as a matter of fairness, I had to talk to the whole congregation about it as well.

But what interests me in this sermon is not primarily evolution or science or controversy or even theological expression, but God. He is the one who will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will expose the motives of men’s hearts – 1 Corinthians 4:5. He is the one who will judge the peoples with equity – Psalm 96:10. He is the one of whom it is said, Where can I go from your Spirit? Where can I flee from your presence? – Psalm 139:7. So, with reverence and joy let’s seek our God in the very necessity of addressing the theory of human evolution.

Knowing the Enemy
If we are going to engage the tensions between Christianity and evolution, we have to know who the enemy is. To introduce the enemy, I want you to be familiar with three kinds of atheist. First, there are those who may profess to believe in God but live as if there is no God. We can call them practical atheists. Psalm 10 describes this kind of person as a wicked man and says, in all his thoughts there is no room for God (v. 4). This practical atheist says to himself, “God has forgotten; he covers his face and never sees” (v. 11).

Second, there is a sizable group of people on the earth today, who are called “protest atheists.” The injustices of the earth and the profound sufferings of humanity have driven them to think, “If there were a God in heaven, he wouldn’t let these things happen.” They are atheists who would like to be persuaded otherwise, but man’s inhumanity to man prevents them. The man who wrote Psalm 73 nearly fell into this category. He looked out on a world in which evil triumphed and said, Surely in vain have I kept my heart pure; in vain have I washed my hands in innocence (v. 13). We need not agree with protest atheism, but we can be sympathetic with people who are deeply moved by the sufferings of mankind.

Third, there are atheists by cold conviction. Marxism and Communism embodied this third kind of atheism. Psalm 14:1 says of this kind of atheist, the fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” Now, atheism of one sort or the other became married to the theory of evolution in people’s minds. The real enemy may not be evolution but the atheism that became closely associated with it.

This leads to another phenomenon that we should not underestimate. Prominent scientists may talk about their atheism and leave the impression that it has the same authority as their scientific work.

Sometimes, this is called scientific atheism, and sometimes (more appropriately), it is called naturalism. Whatever name it goes by, it believes that there is no spiritual reality in the universe. The material universe is all that there is. Although a fairly small minority of people in this country holds this view, it has had inordinate influence because of its privileged position in academia and the entertainment industry.

For example, Jacques Monod shared a Nobel Prize in 1965 for discoveries concerning genetic control of enzymes and virus synthesis. Seven years later, he published a book called Chance and Necessity. In it he called man “a cosmological accident” and said: “Man knows at last that he is alone in the universe’s unfeeling immensity, out of which he emerged only by chance . . . His destiny is nowhere spelled out, nor is his duty. The kingdom above or the darkness below: it is for him to choose.”

It must be true. Monod won the Nobel Prize. He is a brilliant man. But his conclusion is not a scientific conclusion; it is a faith conclusion. For whatever motives, he mixed his atheism with his science. When a famous scientist does that, it can carry weight with some people.

A number of conservative Christians have gone on record as being willing to accept evolutionary theory as a working hypothesis. They see no conflict with their biblical Christianity. We have every right to disagree with them, but we owe them a word of thanks. They illustrate that the real enemy is the scientific atheism that is usually associated with evolutionary theory, and with the questionable practice of some scientists, who talk about atheism as if it had the same authority as their scientific work.

Understanding Science
Two weeks ago, I made an important distinction between God as the Creator and science as the effort to explain how the material creation works. Those who make that distinction will be more willing to allow science to accumulate knowledge by its own methods and to be evaluated by its own standards. This willingness may help Christians to stop seeing science as an enemy of faith and to pay closer attention to how science actually works. I’d like to talk for a few minutes about how science works.

A moment ago, I said that a number of conservative Christians have gone on record as being willing to accept evolutionary theory as a working hypothesis. I did not say they had gone on record as believing in evolution. People talk that way, including scientists, but it is not the best way to describe how science works.

It is better to say that scientists accept, test and revise theories; they don’t believe in them as we believe in Christ. They don’t, because they know that the history of science is littered with attractive theories that turned out to be false. The most famous is of course the theory that the sun revolves around the earth. But there are many other, lesser known ones in modern physics, chemistry and biology.

In the light of this understanding, I want to make two observations that have implications for our evangelical mind-set. First, evangelical, Protestant Christians exert enormous energy in trying to prove that the theory of evolution is false. We do that, because we feel that if evolution were true, it would prove that God doesn’t exist. But we are forgetting that science is not competent to determine whether our faith is true or false.

When a scientist draws conclusions about religion as if they were based on science, we need remind him that he is talking outside his competence. He is being as much a blockhead as we are when we try to disprove the theory of evolution.

When scientists accept a theory as a working explanation of reality, they don’t set out to prove it is false; but they do test its validity thousands and thousands of times. So, whether it is evolution, or quantum mechanics, or a new drug, putting it to the test over and over is the way of science. Part of a theory may fail the test, but that doesn’t cause scientists to discard the whole theory, but to test it some more and to revise it.

And that brings me to a second important point about scientific theories. Every theory has inconsistencies and internal contradictions. God made reality too complicated for human beings to get the theory right on the first try or even the thousandth try. But scientists don’t give up a theory until someone proposes a different and more compelling theory. Instead, they see inconsistencies and contradictions as problems to be solved. Therefore, if we really want to engage the natural sciences in conversation, we need to change our mindset of trying to disprove a comprehensive theory. We need to understand the theory and, above all, we need to understand how science actually works.

A Road Less Traveled
With all I have said as background, I would like to propose a path forward, although I have to acknowledge it may be the road less traveled by.

First, whatever ultimately proves to be the truth about man’s biological past will not contradict the Christian faith. We believe that because we believe the way nature works originated in the mind of God, who revealed Himself in Jesus Christ and Holy Scripture. Scientists who contradict this do so on the basis of faith, not on the basis of science, which is not competent to determine the truth or falsehood of any religious faith.

Second, stop expecting someone to disprove the theory of evolution. There is no magic bullet to put that theory out of its misery. Changes in scientific theory take place over long periods of time and succeed only in the face of serious scientific skepticism.

You may want to say, “But what about Michael Behe and his doctrine of irreducible complexity? What about the teaching of Ken Hamm and Duane Gish and Philip Johnson?” They and others have identified some of the serious inconsistencies and contradictions in the theory of evolution. They do a great service by pointing them out, but they are not offering a viable alternative theory to the theory of evolution.

Third, let’s figure out a better way for our sons and daughters to respond to what they are being taught in biology classrooms. Students need to be talking to each other, and parents need to be talking to their children. Here is what I think needs to be part of the conversation.

Understand what is being taught. Before students criticize the theory of evolution, let them demonstrate to their teacher’s satisfaction that they have grasped what has been taught about the theory of evolution. It is a piece of intellectual integrity that pleases God and teachers. It earns students the right to be heard.

Furthermore, if a student has a taste for this sort of thing, identify an inconsistency or contradiction in the theory of evolution and do a research paper on it. That is the scientific way of dealing with any theory. And by the way, this is where the resources of Michael Behe, Ken Hamm, Duane Gish, William Dembski, and Philip Johnson can be helpful.

Finally, keep appropriate boundaries between faith and science. For example, if the textbook or the teacher draws conclusions about God, ask if science is competent to draw that conclusion. If the textbook or the teacher says that the theory of evolution contradicts the Bible, ask if it is proper to be talking about this subject, when an expert on the Bible is not present.

Understand what is being taught, keep appropriate boundaries between faith and science, and do research papers on an inconsistency or contradiction in the theory of evolution. Approaching the issue in this way will earn Christians a hearing about faith and science and spare them the fruitless task of trying to disprove the theory of evolution.

I know this approach can be difficult at times. Some teachers, especially at the university level, choose to indoctrinate instead of educate. They may berate you in the classroom and even threaten to lower your grade. Just be sure you don’t deserve it.

The Pastoral Center of Gravity
If someone asks me, “Do you believe in evolution?” my answer is: “No, I don’t. Evolution is a persuasive theory that has inconsistencies and contradictions, like all scientific theories, and it continues to be tested and evaluated. But it’s not what I believe. I believe in God the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and in Jesus Christ His only Son, our Lord. That’s the foundation on which a human being can build a good life. It is the foundation on which I have built my life.”

Building on that foundation has taught me to care deeply for the truth. These sermons on creation, Genesis, and science reflect my hunger to know the truth. That makes me willing to take risks where I think my fellow evangelicals have missed something important. It also makes me willing to acknowledge that I haven’t captured the whole truth either.

My home in Christian orthodoxy and my awareness that I don’t have the whole truth keep me safe, even while they keep me hungry to know. They keep me hungry, because they expose gaps in my knowledge. That keeps me open to new ideas. They keep me safe, because Christian orthodoxy gives me a firm place to stand, as I consider the fragments of truth that make their way into my orbit from disparate sources.

My approach calls for me to affirm my faith in God the Creator and to discuss difficult issues without compromising my convictions or bullying and taking refuge in empty generalities. I wish it were the approach of evangelical Christians everywhere.