Evolution from a theological vantage point
I recently read, and have written a review to be published in an upcoming issue of Reports of the National Center for Science Education, of Daniel Harrell's book Nature's Witness: How Evolution Can Inspire Faith, (Abingdon Press, 2008). Harrell is pastor of the venerable Boston evangelical church, Park Street Church. This is the church once pastored by Harold John Ockenga. Harrell is a firm, bible believing evangelical. Like me, he confesses not to be a scientist. But, like me, he's convinced that if all truth is God's truth, that we need to pay attention to science and not discount it.
From his perspective, which for the most part I agree with, we need to recognize that science -- which by definition is naturalistic -- looks at reality from a different perspective than does theology. So, in the question of God, evolution and progress, consider this statement:
What I appreciate about this statement, although it doesn't resolve all difficulties, is that it recognizes the differences in perspective, and grants each its own responsibility. What this perspective, at least in this statement, doesn't account for is the reality that life is anything but predictable. But again, there the question is vantage point. From a distance things look different than up close. Could science be the up close perspective and theology from a distance?
From his perspective, which for the most part I agree with, we need to recognize that science -- which by definition is naturalistic -- looks at reality from a different perspective than does theology. So, in the question of God, evolution and progress, consider this statement:
Does a post hoc view of progress toward greater complexity and the emergence of human consciousness mean that evolution is directional even if there is no discernibly detailed roadmap? Science could never say that. However, theologically, the fact that human evolution has traveled the course that it has can be readily explained by God's involvement. Acting "in, with and under" evolutionary processes, God himself invisibly directs the course of biological history in all of its beauty and intricate wonder. Inasmuch as the universe exhibits an intrinsic relatedness, we might go on to say that evolution's progression represents a striving toward ever deeper relationship -- an actualization of the relational potential God infused into creation's existence. Whether this is happening, science cannot say. But faith can shout it from the rooftops. (pp. 78-79).
What I appreciate about this statement, although it doesn't resolve all difficulties, is that it recognizes the differences in perspective, and grants each its own responsibility. What this perspective, at least in this statement, doesn't account for is the reality that life is anything but predictable. But again, there the question is vantage point. From a distance things look different than up close. Could science be the up close perspective and theology from a distance?
Comments
In view of this scripture, I believe that the theory of evolution is allegorical.
Well that's the thing about faith isn't it? Absolutely anything can be shouted from the rooftops in the name of faith, whether it be true or not, supported by evidence or quite contradicted by evidence. Whatever is said in the name of faith is exactly as useful as anything else that is not dependent on evidence, which is to say its usefulness is unknown, since the statement is not constrained by reality.
Bob: "What I appreciate about this statement, although it doesn't resolve all difficulties, is that it recognizes the differences in perspective, and grants each its own responsibility. What this perspective, at least in this statement, doesn't account for is the reality that life is anything but predictable."
That is a good point. But he seems to be saying that everything that has happened, be it the contingent nature of evolution or choices in our lives, is part of God's plan. That life seems unpredictable then, would be an illusion of God's creation. So he is not actually granting science and faith two separate responsibilities, he is arbitrarily elevating his faith perspective above the observations of science, thus in effect absolving faith of any responsibility, and science of any importance (on matters in which they overlap).
"But again, there the question is vantage point. From a distance things look different than up close. Could science be the up close perspective and theology from a distance?"
That could be I suppose. If theology provides a distant perspective it is still one that is derived from our hopes and thoughts about what a divine perspective may be like, rather than any actual evidence though, so that part of the perspective must be factored in.
It could also be that science provides both the up close and distant perspective. After all, doesn't the scientific understanding of plate tectonics, geologic time, evolutionary history, the expanding universe, etc also present a distant perspective? We can certainly look at the story of humanity from a far more distant perspective now than ever before, by using the tools and methods of science.
I don't believe God is done with His creating. God the Father is all about creating and the very notion that he spoke once and has forever since turned off His creative proclivities is incomprehensible.
Moreover, he very poetical language you point to suggests that He rested on the seventh day, not on every day thereafter. And if he did not rest on the seventh day what did he do on the eighth day if not return to His work? I think care needs to be taken, even among literalists, not to inject meanings where none is intended, not to take every phase too literally.
John
With that in mind, one of the paramount aspects of the natural word is a relentless sense of order combine with an underlying and perhaps even foundational stratum of chaos. Science is ever discerning patterns of predictability and reducing them to "laws" of nature.
From this I have come to believe that God abhors chaos, and desires order, sequence, pattern and definition, and life. Creation then, is a testament to God's divine effort to breathe life into chaos. Order, sequence, pattern and definition are God's approach to that end.
A correlative proposition is that God abhors the miraculous - choosing to work within the confines of His creation rather than utilizing methods which transcend it. God is certainly capable of the miraculous, but I think refrains from such acts as they undermine and discredit the elegance of His Creation.
Thus when we see the miraculous, I sense that its purpose is not to correct some aspect of Creation which begs for adjustment, but instead to communicate most directly to His Creation a message that cannot be communicated in any other way.
That is not to say that God cannot communicate within the confines of Creation, but only that at certain moments God concludes that a Sign is more approppos, more compelling.
My point here is that while we should be open to signs and wonders, (and for m Scripture is a sign and a wonder) I believe that we should focus on Creation to understand what we can about our Creator and to discern what our Creator wishes to communicate to us.
John
Creation is from God. Ideologies and theologies are from humans.
Of course we all have a theological perspective that we work from, but are we not capable of making an effort to minimize its influence so that it does not unduly distort the evidence before us and the conclusions we reach about it?
Maybe that is asking too much.
John