“Puzzled at the question, I looked at him and said, “It looks like this, (Figure 3)”
.He flinched as if I had slapped him. “Whoa, I though you would say they were completely separate, and I thought I was being generous to suggest they might overlap. How do you do that? How can you say they are the same? How can you reconcile creation and evolution? How can you reconcile known geologic history with a recent creation? It turned out that the answer demanded a longer explanation than I could give standing in the foyer of the church. This paper is for my friend.
What are your assumptions?
What is the relationship between the universe and God?
First, how do you answer my friend's question?
1. Draw a Venn diagram of the relationship between Religion and Science in your life or philosophy.
2. Add a circle representing the Universe as described by your understanding of science.
3. Draw a circle representing God.
What does your diagram look like? Is the universe bigger with God inside? Is God bigger with the Universe inside? Are they the same? Do they overlap? Are they completely separate?
4. Note: the question implies the existence of God, and that God and the Universe are distinct and separate entities. Are you comfortable with that?
For this discussion when I use the term “physical universe” or “the Universe, I am referring to the commonly accepted scientific definitions of the physical universe which is made up of time, space and energy and can be measured by physical instruments.
When I refer to God, I have in mind the traditional Christian definitions of God as a being whose existence is outside of, and distinct from the physical universe.
I will also speak of a “spiritual world” which to me is made up of the real, yet intangible things like love, patience, right, wrong, justice, and courage। I perceive the spiritual universe as being distinct from God, and yet finding it’s source in God in the same way that the physical universe finds its source in God.
How do you determine what is true? – Three elements
When you are born, you come into the world essentially with all the intelligence of a bag of chemicals, but as intelligence grows, every human is eventually confronted with the questions, “Who am I? Where did I come from? Where do I want to go? What does THIS mean? What am I going to do about it?” In order to most effectively answer these questions you need to have an accurate understanding of your Universe. So how do you do that? How do you go about defining your Universe? There are really only two sources for knowledge:
A. direct personal observation or
B. revelation - that is accept what someone else tells you.
Of these two methods, which is more accurate and more reliable? – Vote
Those of you, who think that personal observation is the most accurate, ask yourself, “What shape is the Earth?” Isn’t it round and flat like a dinner plate? Ok, there are some mashed potatoes left over in the form of mountains, but basically no matter where you go in the world your personal observation is going to tell you that the world is flat। So why then does a scientist ridicule a person that believes today that the world is flat? Is it not, that he expects you to believe based on the testimony of other people, in this case mathematicians and astronauts? Not all of us can go into space, and not all can gain the specialized knowledge to personally test all advances in knowledge, so at some point, the scientist is going to accept the testimony of others as true, and he is going to insist that you accept it as well, not as observed truth, but as revealed truth. Some philosophers try to make a distinction between science and religion based on the premise that science is what is knowable through observation while religion relies on appeal to authority. It seems ironic since by this definition, most of what is in a science textbook is religion.
So now, if I label people who tend to credit Observation as Scientists and people who tend to credit Revelation as Theologians, then I can ask couple of very interesting questions, “Why do scientists ridicule theologians? Why do theologians dismiss science?” You see, it takes both Science and Revelation to develop an accurate description of the Universe. It is important to be respectful of both.
Unfortunately neither observation nor revelation is entirely accurate. Scientific observations can be faulty due to inadequate instrumentation, faulty technique, or just an inadequate framework for thought. Revelation may be wrong because the source is faulty, or I misunderstand, or I am told an out-right lie. So how does one move from naiveté to maturity?
C. Reason:
It is by use of Reason in a process that is referred to as The Scientific Method.
First you assume certain facts that have been accepted either from the realm of observation or revelation, then you reason from cause to effect. If A is true, and B is true, then when I do X, Y should result. If you are a scientist, the description of the logical sequence is called a theory. If you are a philosopher it is a Myth.
The second step is to test the theory or myth by trying to prove the Null hypothesis. The Null hypothesis states that there is no relationship between the cause and the effect and your observations are due to chance. Basically you try to find any exceptions to the theory. The more often you fail to find an exception to your rule, the more confident you are that the relationships will hold and your theory or myth is accurate. You can never prove that you won’t someday find and exception, but eventually, the theory is found to be reliable enough that, at least within a certain frame of reference, it can be accepted as fact and used as the foundation for the next theory.
Third, when you find the rule doesn’t hold, then you have to redefine the relationships and re-test.
Fourth, Repeat the process indefinitely.
What is the nature of Truth?
Truth is Unitary:
Truth is truth no matter where it comes from, no matter what perspective you start with.
No matter where in the universe of truth two individuals start, no matter how different their perspective, if they hold on to the truth that they have and follow its leading; then as their understanding
expands, they will eventually be able to come to a common understanding . (To use my friend’s financial analogy, there is an exchange rate somewhere.)Since the material world and the spiritual world come from the same source, Scientific and Religious truth properly understood cannot be antagonistic. Our Science should inform our understanding of the Bible, and our understanding of the Bible should inform our Science. If there is a perceived disagreement, then there is opportunity for further study and cause for humility.
Truth is Eternal: That is to say that truth is bigger than time and encompasses change. If I ask you to measure the distance between two rays sharing a common point with time at the X axis, you will get different answers at different times A and B (Diagram 3).
From a scientific perspective, no matter when I measure it, the previous answer will always appear wrong.
The solution to the dilemma is asking a larger question which leads you to the understanding that the distance changes with time.
Modern Humanism might say that truth is always changing. A Christian fundamentalist would say that truth never changes.
For purposes of this discussion the statement, “Truth is progressive” is a false statement.
To say “Our understanding of Truth is progressive is true.”
Truth is Multidimensional:
That is to say that Truth can be understood in different ways, using different metaphors and still be perfectly accurate. For example which is larger the sum of all even numbers or the sum of all odd numbers?
Table 1
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 7
∞ ∞
You might be tempted to think that the sum of all even numbers is larger, and the answer is infinity (Table 1) but in fact, they are equal, and the sum is zero (Table 2).
Table 2
1 -1 = 0 = 2 -2
3 -3 = 0 = 4 -4
5 -5 = 0 = 6 -6
7 -7 = 0 = 8 -8
As a non-mathematician my point in this illustration is not to argue mathematical theory, but only to point out that math is a metaphor which helps you think about reality. Most scientists seem to think that math is objective. If you can prove it mathematically, it is true. But in reality, math is only a metaphor to describe what is already true. Gravity was what it is, long before the formula g=32 m/s2 was written. Gravity is the reality. Numbers are metaphors and equations are in a philosophical sense, myths.
Christian Theological Statements about God:
Traditional Christianity makes several statements about the nature of God. The purpose of this paper is not to discuss the foundation for these concepts; instead I wish to explore how these concepts integrate with my current understanding of science.
God is Transcendent:
In other words, God in his essence is something different, something outside our physical, material universe. It is impossible that we should know anything about Him except as He reveals Himself to us. Therefore a Cosmonaut who goes into space and says, “I don’t see God, therefore he doesn’t exist” is making a foolish statement.
God is Omnipresent:
By that Christians mean that God is intimately present in every part of our universe. All of God, not just part of God is present in every part, even the smallest sub particle. The nuclear physicist who doesn’t see God in the subatomic particles that he studies is blind.
God is Omnipotent:
God is all powerful. As the creator he created the Universe, “that which is seen from that which is not seen”. All “natural law” is in fact a description of God’s present and ongoing activity. Mathematical formulas don’t describe “natural law” that is somehow independent of God. They describe God’s ongoing activity. The Astronomer who looks at gas nebulae and says, “I don’t need God to explain how stars develop” is making a nonsensical statement. The very processes which he is observing are the activity of God. The miracle of feeding the 5000 proves that Jesus is God, not because the act is “supernatural” but because the act is entirely “natural”. It demonstrates that Christ is doing exactly what God does for you every day when you eat breakfast. Yes, the farmer plays a role in getting you breakfast. It is the same role that the disciples played in feeding the 5000.
God is Eternal:
By eternal, we are not just referring to a long period of time. We are referring to a fundamentally different form of existence. The great I AM is eternally present in all of time, past, present, and future, and all of time is only a small portion of God’s experience.
The physical creation is “time bound” which means that effect invariably follows cause. Because the spiritual world is eternal, it is possible for the future to determine the past.
For example, Adams fall resulted in Christ's future death; yet Christ's future death influenced Adam's past. Remember the story about the conference between God and Christ over the creation of this world? It was only after the “lamb had been slain” that man’s creation began. The relationship between fall and redemption was woven into the fabric of the universe at its creation.
Again, we have the example of the two thieves next to Christ. In the physical realm for both, and even for Christ, effect invariably followed cause unto death. For the thief on the left, the cross represented the natural consequences of a life of greed and rebellion. But when the thief on the right found the door into eternal life the past for him was changed. The life of rebellion and defeat became a life of submission and victory. The life leading to condemnation became a life leading to forgiveness. A hopeless journey became a journey to hope. A life of greed and selfishness became a life blessed by a great gift received with gratitude. A barren, fruitless life became a bountiful life with a harvest of countless thousands of souls who have learned how, by his example, to find salvation in Christ.
Mrs. White tells us that our greatest wound will one day become our greatest blessing. Our greatest failure can become our greatest strength. In the eternal realm, your past can be changed by your future without ever violating the law of cause-and-effect in the physical realm. Christ called you to experience eternal life, and you can, even on the day of your death.
Jesus is God Incarnate:
If God is transcendent and omnipresent, then how is it possible for us to know anything about Him? Before the Universe began Jesus was God, and was with God. It was Jesus who spoke the word that created the Universe and then He entered that creation Himself. It was Jesus who stooped down to breath into Adam the breath of life. It was Jesus who spoke with Abraham; and it was Jesus who met with Moses on Sinai. It was Jesus who was born of Mary, becoming fully God and fully Man in every sense of the words. Jesus died on Calvary and rose again, reconciling Mercy and Justice. It is this same Jesus who compassionately wipes away every tear and in those times of quiet reflection, calls you to a life of love, beauty, gratitude, and joy.
How does God reveal Himself?
Thru Creation – natural law, science
Thru Revelation – The scriptures and inspired stories
Thru Theophony – God talking directly - to Abraham, Job, Moses, and to you personally
Thru the Incarnation of Jesus – Physically 2000 years ago as well as spiritually now in his followers
Thru Providence - Personal experiences, life events
Thru the Holy Spirit - who directs the thoughts of your mind.
How do I know my myth is true?
I can be most assured that I understand God and the Truth when all of these avenues to truth are in congruence. To the degree that any of these are out of congruence, to that degree I have room for humility and further study.
As a Seventh-day Adventist, it is helpful to ask, what was Mrs. White’s view of the relationship between Science and Religion?
"God is the author of science. Scientific research opens to the mind vast fields of thought and information, enabling us to see God in his created works."
Scientific research does not conflict with revelation. –
"God is the foundation of everything. All true science is in harmony with His works; all true education leads to obedience to his government. Science opens new wonders to our view; she soars high and explores new depths, but she brings nothing from her research that conflicts with divine revelation.) ST, Mar 20, 1884 (7BC 916)
All Truth is consistent with itself:
If Science or Revelation ever appear to conflict, our misunderstanding may be of one or both. "These persons [Who disbelieve the Genesis account] have lost the simplicity of faith. There should be a settled belief in the divine authority of God’s Holy Word. The Bible is not to be tested by men’s ideas of science. Human knowledge is unreliable. Skeptics who read the Bible for the sake of caviling may, through an imperfect comprehension of either science or revelation, claim to find contradictions between them; but rightly understood, they are in perfect harmony. Moses wrote under the guidance of the Spirit of God, and a correct theory of geology will never claim discoveries that cannot be reconciled with his statements. All truth, whether in nature or in revelation, is consistent with itself in all its manifestations." PP 114 (1890)
"Ignorance may try to support skepticism by appealing to science. Scientific research opens to the mind vast fields of thought and information, enabling us to see God in His created works." 2MCP 739.3
The purpose of Seventh-day Adventists schools is to teach the harmony between science and religion.
". . . our school is to take a higher position in and educational point of view than any other institution of learning, . . . . The great object in the establishment of our college was to give correct views, showing the harmony of science and Bible religion." 4T 274 (1879)
A knowledge of Science is needed by our ministers to correct errors in religion and philosophy: "Young men who desire to enter the field as ministers, colporteurs, or canvassers should first receive a suitable degree of mental training as well as a special preparation for their calling. Those who are uneducated, untrained, and unrefined are not prepared to enter a field in which the powerful influences of talent and education combat the truths of God’s Word. Neither can they successfully meet the strange forms of error, religious and philosophical combined, to expose which requires a knowledge of scientific as well as Scriptural truth." GW 81 (1915)
(Notice, she cold have said that our understanding of the Bible was to correct our understanding of science, but she didn't. She said that it is our science that is to instruct our religion)
Some Adventists have interpreted Mrs. White’s statements about how Geology can never conflict with the writings of Moses to imply that she is hostile to the findings of the science of Geology and that theological interpretations of Genesis should take precedence over our understanding of science. Please note that what she actually said, is:
A. Properly understood, the science of Geology and the story of Genesis cannot conflict.
B. She objected to the use of the findings of Geology to promote skepticism.
C. And what she actually said, is that science should be used to correct theological and philosophical error.
In my opinion, Mrs. White was a champion of science in a religious environment that was generally hostile to science.
My Theory of Origins:
With this foundation, it is now possible to discuss specific issues of Origin. Please note that this paper is not intended to be a proof for the existence of God. Only a discussion of how I integrate Science and Religion into a theory that best explains the universe as I find it.
Proofs about God and Darwinism:
One potential source of misunderstanding between scientists and theologians may be illustrated as follows. For a mathematician, if A=B is True, then B=A is True. However, for the theologian, the equation, “God is (=) everywhere” is True, but the reverse equation, “Everywhere is (=) God” is False. The statement, “God is everywhere” is a true statement about his omnipresence. The statement, “Everywhere is God” is a false statement about His transcendence and is essentially the definition of Pantheism. I think that one reason every proof of God’s existence breaks down into circular reasoning may be that this fundamental difference in logic is not recognized.
The problem with Darwinism from a Christian perspective is NOT so much the theory of Natural Selection, but it is his philosophical doctrine of “Scientific Naturalism” which states that “God is always absent from the realm of nature”. The doctrine of Scientific Naturalism”, which pre-dates Darwin, is a false statement about both God’s Omnipresence and His Incarnation. It IS possible to accept the theory of Natural Selection without accepting the doctrine of Scientific Naturalism and this may explain the Pope’s recent acceptance of the Theory of Evolution.
From this point on, when I refer to the theory of “Evolution”, I am referring to the theory of “Natural Selection” without the connotation of “Scientific Naturalism”.
My belief in God is pragmatic:
I have to admit that at least part of the reason I believe in God is pragmatism. I read articles on scientific naturalism that try to show how abstract things like love, mercy, right, wrong and morality, can arise from a single cause in the physical universe, and the explanation is so complex that I can hardly understand it. Then I read the Bible which describes my current world as being a complex mixture of three elements, the Physical, a good Spirit (God), and an evil spirit (Satan), and it is so simple, and so practical, and it functions so well as paradigm for everyday living that as a pragmatic decision I choose to believe the Bible. For me it just works better.
Is Scientific Naturalism a requirement of science?
Some scientists such as Dawkins object to belief in God on grounds that it precludes good science. First because there is no rationale for science if the answer to every question of “How did that happen?” is answered only by “God did it”. And second, if God randomly inserts miracles into the chain of cause and effect, it destroys the whole foundation for science.
I think that there is still a reason for science if you believe in God. As Mrs. White states, true science “thinks God’s thoughts after Him.”
Second, it is possible for the spiritual realm to influence the physical realm without breaking the law of cause and effect and without resorting to “miracles”. We see it every day. Here is an example: there are two contractors who are each building a house. One is diligent, enthusiastic, methodical, and prudent (all spiritual qualities), the other is lazy, depressed, distracted, and impulsive. When they are done with their houses, no scientist will ever say that the law of cause and effect has been violated, yet the spirit of the individuals clearly has an impact on the quality of the respective houses.
Here is another example, look at all the cathedrals in Europe. How do you account for their existence except by spiritual influences? And yet nothing broke the law of cause and effect. If man’s sprit can influence the physical realm without violating the principle of cause and effect, then why can’t God?
It is not scientific naturalism that is the foundation of science; it is the law of cause and effect. Nothing about belief in God precludes good science.
Evolution is consistent with the Character of God as expressed both in the Bible and in nature.
Have you ever wondered how it is that the natural world lends itself so well to illustrations of spiritual principles? I believe that this is no accident, but that the physical world is an expression of the Divine mind and character. The doctrine of the incarnation tells us that by studying nature we can in fact discern the character of God. So if we take the Bible and our observations of science seriously, what do we see?
Evolution is consistent with The Seed Principle:
First, God says of himself, “I change not” and again, “in whom there is no shadow of turning”. And yet, we see change all around us. In fact there is nothing that is not changing. This paradox is resolved when we realize that God is the eternal Creator. He is always creating. Nothing stays the same, but everything is being continually re-created. Somehow, the more things change, the more they are the same, only in a new and better way.
Second we talk about love being a central feature of God’s character. We say that “God is Love”. By Love we are referring to the unselfish giving of oneself for the benefit of others. How does the Eternal-Self-Existent-One love? To whom does He give Himself? Where is the “Other”? The “Other” is the natural world. This is why Christianity has declared Pantheism, the belief that nature is God, to be a heresy. Nature is not god. It (or more specifically the church) is the “Other” which God created and loves.
Third, note that “Christ is the lamb that was slain from the foundation of the world”. I take this to mean that the act of incarnation took place at the beginning of creation and that the incarnation required the “giving” of self by one member of the Trinity in an act of love. When Christ was incarnated the unity of God was forever changed. In a very real sense the old Trinity “died” and a new Trinity was reborn as the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
Given the fact that Christ was the Lamb that was slain (dead) before the foundation of the world and that the physical world is the incarnation of the spirit; it should not be surprising that we see the dissolution/death of “What-Is” and the re-creation/rebirth of the “New” as a foundational principle of this universe. I call this the “Seed Principle” after Jesus’ description of the seed that lives alone until it is thrown down and dies and then grows into a new plant to produce a hundred-fold harvest. Note that the seed at the end of the harvest is the same as, but different from the seed that was planted and that the original seed is never recovered. In this sense God is always creating, but never changing.
Evolution is consistent with the principle of the New Earth:
The Bible speaks of the world as passing way and of God re-creating a “New Earth”. While I am sure that this will be true in our traditional way of thinking of it as a future event, it is also true in the past and in the here-and-now in a very literal way.
At the beginning of creation, God spoke (John 1). What is speech other than the process by which abstract thought from one spirit is translated into symbols or words? Those words are then in turn given physical reality in the form of sound waves. Those sound waves are received by a second spirit. The symbol is decoded, and the message received. In the case of God, His thought was translated into physical reality in the form of electromagnetic energy at the time of the “Big Bang”. That is why our physical reality is such a good metaphor for spiritual truth. It is “God’s thought made audible”. I don’t believe that God is finished thinking or speaking. There is more yet to come.
Genesis and Science agree that when God first spoke the universe into existence, it was a dark universe. It contained only energy and expanding space. It was so dense that there was not even enough room for light. It had no “form”. It was “void”.
As the universe expanded and cooled. God said, “Let there be light”, and there was light; the fundamental building block of all energy and matter in the universe. According to the seed principle, the dark universe died and was reborn as the universe if light.
As the universe expanded and cooled, the universe of light and energy “died” and was reborn as the universe of subatomic particles such as protons, neutrons and electrons.
Again, the universe of subatomic particles died and was reborn as the universe of hydrogen and helium atoms which in turn coalesced and died only to be reborn as the universe of the great proto-suns.
The universe of the great proto-suns died in great explosions sending heavier atoms and remaining hydrogen out to give birth to the universe of galaxy sized nebulae where complex organic molecules including ribonucleic acids, the building blocks of life were formed.
The universe of the nebulae coalesced and “died” to birth the galaxies of heavier suns and planets we see today. Planets filled with water and complex organic molecules, the foundation for life. How many worlds did God create before he created ours? The Bible suggests that there were many. (Read Job)
Today here on our earth, the seed principle continues. Great mountains push up, only to be eroded away into soil for plants. Plants grow and are eaten to become the bone and flesh of man and animal. Lakes fill up with sediment and die to become meadows. Meadows fill up and die to become deciduous forests. Deciduous forests die to become coniferous forests. Even that 300 year old oak tree in your neighborhood is constantly dying and being recreated. It isn’t the same tree this year that it was last year. Every year, leaves and branches that are in the shade die, while branches in the sun grow. Every year the tree is re-created into a new tree that is better able to capture the sun.
Notice how in every case the re-creation is not exactly the same as what preceded, but is new and better. I think we see this principle even in the resurrection of Christ. Notice that when Christ, died, he came back similar but different. He was similar in that his friends recognized him and he had a body that could eat and be touched, but he was different in that he had new powers to disappear and appear, and to pass through locked doors. And He was different enough that his friends, Mary and the disciples on the road to Emmaus did not recognize him at first, and many of the disciples who spent considerable time with him in Galilee went away with doubts.
Paul tells us that we cannot enter the new world in this flesh, but that those who are alive when Christ comes must be changed in the twinkling of an eye. That leads me to believe that when God said “In the day that you eat of the tree you will surely die,” he meant it. When you and I die, we will never return to THIS earth in THIS body. Instead, in accordance with the Seed Principle, we will become a new creation in a new earth; similar, but different, better.
You and I experience this same principle at work in our personal spiritual lives as well. We are born and grow into young spiritual beings. At some point in every life, every one of us undergoes a spiritual death. Remember when you cried out, “Why God?” If we accept Christ as the answer to that question, then we are reborn by the Spirit, and we begin a new spiritual life in Christ. It is similar to the old life, but it is different in a new and better way.
For those of you who have been married 30 or more years. How many times has your relationship with your spouse died and been reborn? The death is painful, but isn’t it better, more sweet on the other side of the rebirth?
The Bible has hints of a previous world, and a future world that will not contain death. But at least in this world, in this universe, in this creation it appears that the Seed Principle, the process of birth, death, and re-creation, or evolution is a fundamental principle of the universe.
Evolution is consistent with the principle of Diversity:
Looking at the crazy plants and animals in this world, you have to believe that God loves diversity. If that is true, then why wouldn’t He create organisms with the capacity to change and develop, to respond to new and different conditions and environments?
Those who were alive in the 60’s remember the Thalidomide babies. Small changes in the microenvironment of the fetal cells during development resulted in dramatic changes in body architecture with no change what so ever in the genetic code. In the case of Thalidomide it was detrimental, but the fact remains, it doesn’t take wholesale changes in genetic code to produce changes in body architecture. Is it possible that God created humanity with the capacity to adapt to different environments as they reach out to explore the universe?
It is beyond the scope of this paper to get into the details of genetics, but as science is beginning to understand the genetic code better, it is becoming increasingly apparent that God in fact did exactly that.
It may be helpful for the fundamentalist Bible student to remember that the idea of “species” is not a Biblical idea. That was an idea that originated with Hippocrates when he was studying the mating habits of fish. The more you look at what a species is, the harder it is to define it. Organisms are generally grouped together based on common characteristics, but who decides which characteristics define a species? Hopefully it is defined by characteristics that determine whether they can mate, but that isn’t always clear. Do teacup shih tzu dogs and St. Bernard dogs belong in different species? There are other organisms where the answer is far more complicated, and scientists are continually redefining which organisms belong to which species based on new evidence.
The Genesis record only mentions a few “Kinds”: Fish, Birds, Wild Animals, Domestic Animals, Man, plants with fruit, plants with seeds, and herbs, nothing that resembles our concept of species. The command by God to reproduce after their “Kind” leaves a lot of room for change. I believe the God who loved diversity intended it to be that way.
Evolution is consistent with the principle of Freedom of Choice:
Evolution is consistent with God’s gift of freedom of choice. God gave Adam and Eve the command to be fruitful and multiply, and to subdue the earth. Implicit in that command is the recognition that as the population of Man grows, he will move out into the world. Certain parts of creation will be displaced. Which parts will be, by necessity, determined by man’s choices. What will he value and keep, and what will he cause or allow to become extinct? What kind of a world will he want to live in? If those are real and valid choices, then it seems reasonable that a wise creator would build into his creation the ability to change and adapt to the new realities imposed by man’s choices.
The fossil record of Evolution is consistent with Intelligent Design.
Everyone will admit that cars were created by intelligent design. Look at the fossil record of automobiles. They probably started with a bundle tied between two sticks behind a horse. Someone added wheels to form a crude wooden Ox cart. The ox cart is refined into a chariot with metal parts. Eventually there is a elegant horse drawn carriage followed by a “horseless carriage” with a crude gasoline engine. That is followed by increasingly more complex automobiles in countless varieties. Each with subtle changes; re-using parts and design elements from previous versions; each evolving to meet the needs of evolutionary niches. If you wanted, you could chart an evolutionary tree, and divide them into classes, families and species. Certain models would probably even disappear from the record leaving evolutionary “gaps”. How is the fossil record of intelligent design different than the fossil record of evolution by scientific naturalism? If there is a difference I sure don’t see it. I don’t think the fossils say anything about whether the world was created by God, or by the processes of scientific naturalism.
Evidence for the Theory of Evolution in the Bible and the writings of Ellen G. White.
If we look carefully at the Bible and the writing of Mrs. White I think we have to acknowledge that God either created the world a much different place than we have imagined, or that evolution is at least implied.
The Genesis story describes Man’s dual nature. God sculpted his physical body from the dust of the ground; while his spiritual nature was breathed into him by the spirit of God. Thus man was the image of the God, a spiritual being who had incarnated himself into a physical universe.
Each of Man’s two natures were dependent on his relationship to two trees. Man’s spiritual life was dependent on his continuing to show respect for God by not eating of the Tree-of-the-Knowledge-of-Good-and-Evil. Man’s physical nature was dependent on his continued eating of the Tree-of-Life.
Man’s spiritual being operated according to the laws of the spirit, specifically the law of Eternity. God said that in the day man ate of the Tree-of-the-Knowledge-of-Good-and-Evil he would die. And he did. See Adam and Eve hiding from God in fear. See the death of their love as they cast blame on others. Only as they accepted the “Lamb slain from the foundation of the world” were they spiritually reborn to the new spiritual life of “One-Who-Has-Been-Redeemed”. Because the spiritual nature is governed by of the law of Eternity, we find ourselves living in the states of innocence, sinfulness, and as redeemed all at the same time.
On the other hand Man’s physical being followed the physical laws of cause-and-effect. As long as man ate from the Tree-of-Life, he would live. The Tree-of-Life had this effect on Adam and Eve regardless of the state of their spiritual nature causing God to first post a guard on the tree, and later, to remove the garden all together.
Now I think everyone agrees that man shares his physical nature with the rest of the animal kingdom and the Bible indicates that God filled the earth with life. We have assumed that there was no death until the Fall, but what about the animals outside the garden on the other side of the world? Perhaps a few animals close to the garden could get to the tree of life and eat, as the serpent appears to have done, but assuming that the rest of the animals are subject to the same physical laws as Adam and Eve, then those that couldn’t get to the tree would have been subject to death and the possibility of evolution from the beginning. Wouldn’t we expect to see fossil evidence of this?
Now, accepting Bible chronology and taking the story seriously at face value, let’s go a couple of thousand years to the time of the Flood. The Bible and Mrs. White both indicate that after the Flood, Noah was afraid of the animals. And Mrs. White in Patriarchs and Prophets uses the term “large carnivores”. Now, if God created the world without death, and he created all the species with fixed genetics, then where did the carnivores come from? Either God created them as carnivores and God created a world including death from the beginning, or the carnivores evolved, or both. That kind of evolution is not possible at the glacial pace proposed by historical theories of evolution. It would require mechanisms designed to evolve. Some of those mechanisms geneticists may just now be starting to discover.
On the Issue of Time:
Was the earth created billions of years ago as the geological evidence suggests, or was it created a few thousand years ago as so called “fundamentalists” believe? There are several problems encountered when answering this question.
The first problem is logical. As soon as you credit God with the ability to speak the world into existence as a “going concern”, then you can no longer tell when it was created. Logically He could have zapped it into existence the instant you gained consciousness, 6,000 years ago, or billions of years ago, and there would be no way for you to distinguish. So why go there?
Second, from the Biblical perspective, which beginning is referred to in Genesis 1:1? Was it the beginning of the Universe, or the beginning of life on this world, or the beginning of the spiritual realm where the Angels and Satan dwell? Linguistically you can’t tell.
Except for the element of time, there is an incredible correlation between the sequence of events in the Biblical creation story and the modern theories of the early universe. Also, the Bible seems to indicate a pre-existent globe when is speaks of the spirit brooding over the face of the waters. So a reasonable interpretation of Genesis is that the story describes elements common to both the origin of the larger universe which ultimately lead by standard astrological processes to the formation of the planetary Earth, and also to the more recent the creation of life on this planet. So, from a Biblical perspective it is possible to accept any length of time a geologists or astronomer wants to postulate, and still accept a literal 7 day creation of life on this earth. The problem with arguing about it is that if you accept that God created the earth during those 7 days as a “going concern”, then you have no logical way to confirm the time by observation.
Third, the whole concept of time in the Bible is different. It is infused with the quality of Eternity. We have literal historical time, then we have the prophetic year-for-a-day principle, then God says of Himself, “a day is as a thousand years”. When we study the 7 seven churches, they can represent 7 literal churches that existed in John’s day, or they can represent 7 epochs of church history, or they can represent archetypal descriptions of individual churches in every time, or they can represent stages of growth in an individual church at different times in it’s corporate life history, or it can represent the stages of spiritual development in the lives of individual believers. I think the story of creation is like that. It is true on many levels, and it really isn’t helpful to argue over the literalness of time.
What about the Sabbath?
Some Seventh-day Adventists might worry that if you don’t insist on a literal 7 day creation week only a few thousand years ago that you will lose the Sabbath, but I don’t think so. I think we actually strengthen our commitment to the Sabbath when we begin to understand the Eternal quality of time as it relates to our spirituality. Also, the Sabbath is a part of the sacred stories. If we truly honor the sacred scripture and our heritage then the Sabbath will also be part of us. It brings us right back to the original issue in the Garden-of-Eden, will we respect and honor boundaries?
The Problem of Death:
How do you reconcile the process of evolution with the concept of a loving God? I guess I would have to ask for clarification. What is it about the process of evolution that would preclude God from being loving and just?
Are you worried about the death of animals? There seems to be no moral value attached to the lives of animals. God instituted the sacrifice of “innocent ” lambs in Genesis. Christ ate fish and meat freely, even after the resurrection. I would be very reticent to assign moral value where God has not.
Are you worried about man evolving through a process that includes death? How would that be different that the current state of affairs? If a loving God can reconcile Himself to your death, why couldn’t he reconcile himself to the death of others? Actually, there might be some very good reasons for God to create/allow death. If you can’t think of any, ask your teenage children if they can think of any. Are you a middle manager working your way up the corporate ladder? What would it be like if no one ever retired? Or talk to your hospice nurse and ask her how she can keep doing her work. She will tell you wonderful stories about the spiritual journeys that happen as people are dying.
I think the real problem we have is not with death, but with grief. How to deal with grief is beyond the scope of this paper, but let me just say this. Grief is OK. Jesus wept. Grief is really the back side of Love; the other side of the same coin. To illustrate, notice that there are hundreds of thousands of people dying every day and for the most part, it doesn’t bother you a bit. It is only when someone you know dies that you grieve, and your grief is proportional to how you love. Don’t try to deny or avoid grief. Embrace it with all the passion of your love. You will find that God is there with you, and you will find that your grief contains within it its own antidote to the pain. There will come a time when you will be able to remember the good times without the pain you are having now.
If the sweetness of love is like sugar, then grief is like the bitterness of coca. My life is richer for having tasted a deep, dark chocolate.
Reconciliation and Redemption, a myth for the scientific mind:
When Man first fell, God used the concrete action of killing a lamb to break their rebellious hearts and to show Adam and Eve what sacrifice He would endure to restore their relationship of mutual love and respect.
In the Apostle Paul’s day, the Greco-Roman Government was the first world empire ever founded on the rule of law. Paul reinterpreted the story of reconciliation by sacrifice into a judicial model explaining how God reconciled justice with forgiveness.
In the scientific age, I think the Newtonian laws provide a model that is easier at least for me to understand. Since the doctrine of the Incarnation tells us that the physical world serves as an illustration of spiritual realities, let me ask, “What in the spiritual world correlates with the law “for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction?” It sounds like Justice to me. And Justice has a lot to do with balance and reconciliation. How does God reconcile within His own heart of love the terrible atrocities created by evil? How can He go through eternity living with the guilt that He permitted millions of Jews to be loaded into cattle cars and incinerated alive? And what do we mean when we say that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself?
Well, the Bible describes Christ as “the lamb that was slain from the foundation of the world” and Mrs. White describes a discussion between the Father and the Son before the creation of the world in which the Son agreed to become the Lamb when man fell. I think what this means is that before creation “everything” was in moral harmony. There was no moral dissonance between acts of mercy and acts of justice. Before anything was created, God experienced the full weight of evil, and committed Himself as Christ to bear the guilt of the perpetrator, the pain of the victim, and the grief of the lover Himself. He fully committed Himself to oppose evil, to do whatever it takes to bring mercy and justice back into harmony, even to the breakup (“death”) of the trinity itself.
Having settled the issue, Christ created both the physical universe as well as its mirror, the spiritual universe, with this law fully operable. I think this is the foundation of God’s warning to Satan at the time of Man’s fall. In essence He said, “Ok Satan, I gave you freedom and you have chosen to abuse humanity with a lie, but be careful, every action causes an equal and opposite reaction, and as a result of your abuse, Man will hate you”. (“I will put enmity in their hearts”). This is a principle that I think we see in operation every day. People instinctively hate lies. Criminals might not like the punishment they receive when they get caught, but at least they understand it.
Yes, there is a lot of evil in this world, but there is a lot of the overcoming of evil as well. In a perfect world, there could be no courage because there is no fear. It must have been a quite a shock to Satan to discover fear overcome by courage, greed by charity; abuse by grace, lust by respect, despair by hope, and loneliness by friendliness, grief by gratitude, anxiety by comfort. I in no way want to diminish the power of evil, but neither would I fail to value the positive virtues which otherwise would have remained forever unknown. Yes, buy eating of the Tree-of-Knowledge-of-Good-and-Evil, man gained the knowledge of an evil which completely devastated his world, but he also gained knowledge of a more profound good, capable recreating his world into something new and better.
As for the Holocaust, the evil cannot be justified; the horror should not be discounted. Still, we would do well to honor and value the greater good that came from it. The valor and camaraderie of the allies who overcame it forever changed the psyche of the world . In the United States, I think the moral clarity of the Holocaust largely fueled the civil rights movement, freeing millions from the bondage of racism. It also gave the west the courage to oppose the human rights abuses of Stalin and Mao, Pol-pot, and Eddie Amine during the cold war. From the positive perspective; it motivates our drive to free Iraq from Saddam’s oppression, and to stop the genocide in Darfur. (The principle works negatively as well. Our greed makes much of the world suspicious that we are only there for the oil so that they withhold their whole hearted support.)
But one might ask, “What about the victims?” I can’t dwell on it here in this paper, but listen to the testimony of those who went through it in the works of Dr. Frankel, “Man’s Search for Meaning”, and in Core Ten Boom’s “The Hiding Place”. God did not forsake them! Yes, they went through a terrible trial, but they also experienced the power of God in a way that most of us going through our Saccharin lives can never imagine. Never diminish the evil; but don’t diminish God’s response to it either. Yes, you are going to die. Thank God for life.
The Second Death happened:
Adventists talk about the “Second Death” as the final elimination of evil. In this context we are referring primarily to the spiritual and moral nature rather than the biological being. What does it mean for a spirit to die? It may mean more, but I think it at least means this, that the “moral or spiritual influence” of the spirit is eliminated from the remaining culture. The effect of that person’s individual selfishness is overcome by the love and generosity of others and what is left is the eternal self-giving of love and life. Because the spiritual world is eternal, this is an accomplished fact, past tense . It is the way the universe is here and now. You don’t believe me? No one would accuse Hollywood of having a Christian bias, but even Hollywood can’t help themselves. It is a rare story that does not turn out with good winning and the distortions of evil resolved.
Another case in point is Hitler. With rare exception his name no longer inspires people to the cause of racism. For the most part the influence of Hitler leads people to abhor racism. His evil influence is dead; it has been overcome with good.
I know we all struggle with the problem of evil, but because the outcome has been determined, the reconciliation occurred even before the evil was conceived; at some foundational level there is no reason for us to be unsettled. It is only temporary. Evil is met with good, blow for blow, and ultimately evil will be found to be only a shadow. A shadow does not have an independent existence. It is only the temporary blocking of light. In the same way evil is only the temporary blocking of the outflow of God’s love by a choice. Yes, there is a shadow, but it only exists by choice. It is up to us to choose.
Posts
