|
WHY DARWINISM AND CHRISTIANITY ARE COMPATIBLE
a sermon
given on Sunday 22nd February @ 6pm
INTRODUCTION
Last Thursday was Darwin Day. The eminent biologist, Charles
Darwin, was born on 12 February 1809 and special events have been
arranged this year to commemorate the 200th anniversary
of his birth and the 150th anniversary of his book ‘On
the Origin of Species’.
Until Darwin it was generally believed that each species of animal
and plant life was created separately. Darwin provided evidence
indicating that all present-day species of life, including human
beings, came from a common origin, and that they evolved gradually
and slowly over a long period of time. A process that he called
Natural Selection favoured those creatures having characteristics
that gave them advantages to survive in a particular environment.
Darwin’s theory gave a unifying, logical explanation for the immense
diversity of life forms, but it also seemed to contradict the
description of a six day creation in the book of Genesis, where
human beings are a special, ready-made creation by God. It was also
at odds with a calculation made in the 17th century by
James Ussher, Archbishop of Ireland, that the earth was created on
Sunday 23 October 4004 BC.
Many Christian believers tried to harmonise the implications of
Darwin’s ideas for their faith. It hasn’t appeared to be a problem
for most of them, until American fundamentalists recently began
demonising Darwin and demanding that Creationism be taught in
science lessons in schools. As a result scientists like Richard
Dawkins have understandably become very angry.
Many mainstream preachers in America, and elsewhere, are observing
today as Evolution Sunday, in order to make it clear that evolution
and faith are not incompatible.
DARWINIAN
SCIENCE IS NOT IN ITSELF ATHEISTIC.
While it’s true that some scientists, like Richard Dawkins, are
confirmed atheists, not all of them are.
One of Darwin’s closest friends and ablest supporters was a botanist
called Asa Gray. He was a professor at Harvard University and also
an ardent evangelical Christian. Gray saw no contradiction between
a Bible-believing faith and being open to the latest scientific
research, and he was instrumental in getting Darwin published in
America. Darwin did have problems in seeing a good purpose and
design in the world where he could see so much random chance and
suffering. He did find it hard to understand why a benevolent,
loving God should design cats to play with mice. On the other hand,
he said that he couldn’t look at the wonders in the universe and
conclude that everything, especially the nature of man, is the
result of brute force. At the end of his life he wrote, ‘If we
consider the whole universe the mind refuses to look at it as the
last outcome of chance.’
Many modern scientists who accept Darwinism are humbled by the sense
of the ‘other’ and the mystery in the world. As they pursue their
knowledge they feel a sense of awe at the universe we inhabit and
they wonder at our place in it, which leads them to believe in a
Creator God. Simon Conway Morris is professor of evolutionary
palaeobiology at Cambridge University. In April he received the
‘Trotter’ prize for his research work on early evolution. He sees
no problem in reconciling this with his Christian faith and he has
said that Christians who are trying to prove a literal reading of
‘Genesis’ are wasting their time and that they are engaged in bad
theology.
MOST CHRISTIAN THINKERS AGREE THAT THEIR FAITH DOESN’T PREVENT THEM
FROM ACCEPTING DARWINISM.
Whereas some Christians take a fundamentalist view of scripture and
believe that the creation account given in the first chapter of
‘Genesis’ is literally true, not all do. The language and the
rhythmic, repetitive style indicate that this is poetry. It’s to be
seen as a hymn, written out of faith, to convey certain enduring
theological truths about the world and about the relationship of
human beings with God, rather than reading it as a scientific
account of how the world was put together. ‘Genesis’ asserts that
an eternal God is the creator of all things, that creation is good
and that human beings have a spiritual capacity to know God. It
does speak of an evolving creation, using ‘days’ as periods of
time. For many Christians, evolution doesn’t do away with the need
for a Creator. They see God establishing scientific laws at the
moment of creative design, and then continuing to work through them.
It is possible to have both a divine universe AND a universe
governed by scientific laws.
An Anglican priest who was a contemporary of Darwin, Rev Charles
Kingsley, was a firm believer in evolution and he was one of the
first to praise Darwin’s book. In his story ‘The Water Babies’ he
referred to evolutionary views. One of the characters, Tom, meets
Mother Carey and says to her, ‘I heard ma’am that you were always
making new things out of old.’ ‘So people fancy,’ she replied. But
I am not going to trouble myself to make things my little dear. I
sit here and make them make themselves.’ For Kingsley it was just
as noble a conception of God to believe that God created a few forms
capable of self development into other forms as it was to believe
that God required fresh acts of creation.
I find it stimulating rather than threatening to see creation as
progressing rather than static; to think that new, original
creatures are evolving, making for an amazing diversity of species.
Teilhard de Chardin was a French Roman Catholic priest, trained as a
palaeontologist and geologist. He saw creation as constantly
evolving into higher forms of complexity, consciousness and
personality. We are being drawn towards the highest form of
complexity, consciousness and personality, which he calls ‘The Omega
Point’ or God. Others have extended his idea to say that human
beings will eventually evolve into more ethical, spiritual beings,
people like Jesus, and that Jesus is the human form of ‘The Omega
Point’. Fans of Arthur C Clarke, the science fiction writer, can
recognise this theme in ‘Childhood’s End,’ where the destiny of the
human race was to evolve and to merge with an overall cosmic
intelligence.
The Church of England has recently clarified its position by issuing
an article saying that the 200th Anniversary of Darwin’s
birth is a fitting time to apologise to Darwin for
‘misunderstanding you, and by getting our first reaction wrong,
encouraging others to misunderstand you still.’
BOTH
CHRISTIANITY AND DARWINISM DO POSE DIFFICULT PHILOSOPHICAL
QUESTIONS.
It is impossible for some people to see how all the wastage and
suffering involved in evolution can possibly square with a belief in
a benevolent God. It’s difficult to see any sense of purpose in
this, and easier to conclude that it is all random chance.
Christians have the faith to accept, from what they see in the pain
and agony of Jesus, that suffering is part of the pattern of
creation and that God is involved in suffering too. This is an
unfortunate consequence of God’s allowing free will.
Darwinism suggests that the underlying principle behind the world is
the survival of the fittest. This is not a comfortable idea as it
can lead to the weeding out of those who are elderly and frail, who
are weak and vulnerable, and who have physical or mental
disabilities - all those that Jesus treated with special compassion
and showed that we must care for. It has been used to justify the
unequal distribution of wealth and power. Poor people were thought
to be failures in the natural competition for survival. Helping them
was seen as a waste of time and contrary to nature. Jesus teaches
us different values.
Another difficulty with the notion of the survival of the fittest is
how explain the presence of altruism, of self sacrifice and
niceness; why some creatures, including human beings, are prepared
to cooperate and to act unselfishly for the good of others, if all
that is spurring them is to act in their own self-interest.
Dawkins’ explanation, that if an animal puts its life at risk for
its offspring, then it is preserving half its own genes, will
convince some people more than it does others.
CONCLUSION
It is not the case, then, that we have to choose between religion
and modern science, as some strident Christians have been
maintaining. You CAN have both. We don’t have to make a choice
between creation in six days or a godless accidental universe with
no meaning. There is another possibility. You don’t have to be an
atheist if you find that all the accumulating evidence supporting
evolution is compelling. It is possible to interpret ‘Genesis’ in
a non-literal way. It is possible to see enough purpose and design
in the world for us to believe that it was not a random chance
creation, but the conception of a loving God, who identifies with
suffering, and who is still working in the world today, moving to
the culmination of all things.
Science helps us to understand how the universe works. But faith
helps us to find meaning and blessedness in it.
Margaret Bradley
|