Saving Darwin -- A Review

SAVING DARWIN: How to be a Christian and Believe in Evolution. By Karl Giberson. San Francisco: HarperOne, 2008. viii + 248 pp.

If you’ve been listening to any of the rhetoric about Charles Darwin of late, then a title like this should draw one of two responses: On the one hand, there is an increasingly vocal group of people who would find the idea of Charles Darwin getting saved insulting to Darwin and to them. Darwin, after all, has liberated us from the confining straitjacket of religion, enabling us to be atheists. On the other hand, there is an even larger, and very vocal contingent of people who believe that the only way for Darwin to get saved would be for him to repent of his diabolical schemes and recant his theories, theories that have led so many people astray. With these two positions seeming to define the possible categories of discussion, one might wonder whether there is another possible way of looking at Darwin – a middle road perhaps?

When Karl Giberson, a Christian and a physicist teaching at a Christian college, speaks of “saving Darwin,” he has reputation and not soul in mind. Giberson has written a number of articles and books that have addressed this issue, helping people find their way through the maze of conflicting statements about Darwin, science, and evolution. The subtitle offers insight into what his agenda might be. As a Christian and as a scientist who affirms evolution he wants us to consider whether these Christian faith and evolution are compatible. If not, then what options do we have?

Giberson begins his exploration, much of which is historical, with a confession – a confession of his starting point. Like many of us who now embrace evolution, there was a time when he was of a different opinion. Indeed, as a youth he had become interested in science, but in a science framed by the late Creationist Henry Morris. When he went to college, he took with him a well-used copy of The Genesis Flood, a book written by Morris, a highly regarded engineer and John C. Whitcomb, a fundamentalist bible scholar. In their book, which continues to be republished and widely read, these two men laid out in detail what became the creationist position. It is young earth and it places the Flood at the center of the conversation. Indeed, the flood is seen as the explanation for the fossil record and all other geological questions. He went to college, living and breathing Morris and Whitcomb, only to discover that both the science and the interpretation of the bible were deeply flawed. That difficult discovery led him on a journey toward an embrace of evolutionary theory.

In this important and readable book, Giberson takes on both ends of the spectrum – the creationists who disregard evolution (and in this group one must add the Intelligent Design folk) and the New Atheists who believe that evolution liberates us from religion. Although, as a number of commentators have noted of late, Darwin isn’t the beginning and the end of evolution -- the theory emerged before the publication of The Origin of the Species and it has continued to “evolve” since then – Darwin has become the face of evolution for many Christians. If Giberson’s question is to be answered in the affirmative, then Darwin’s legacy needs to be reclaimed and restored – thus the saving of Darwin.

In the first chapter, entitled “The Lie Among Us,” The author takes aim at the conflicting portrayals of Darwin. He introduces us to a man who was cautious, and who started as a person of faith and ended not as an atheist but as an agnostic. In response to those who would charge Darwin with conceiving of this theory – including natural selection – to sustain his spiritual infidelity, the author notes that the theory emerged prior to the loss of faith. But ultimately it wasn’t the science that caused him to walk away from God, it was the unanswered moral and theological questions that plague us all, the most important of which was the death of his young beloved daughter Annie. When he went on the voyage, he would have been a good Intelligent Design person. He was quite taken with William Paley’s Natural Theology, but in time he discovered that Paley’s watchmaker wasn’t as careful about his work as had been suggested. Paley was his guide as he headed out on his journey, but his expectations were not fulfilled. At his death, Giberson suggests that Darwin was a reluctant agnostic. He never attacked the church – indeed he remained a faithful member, supporting its causes, though while his family was attending worship he would walk in nature.

We are reminded throughout the book that from the very beginning Darwin found support for his ideas among religious people. At first Darwin wasn’t considered all that big a threat – a far bigger threat was coming from Germany in the form of higher critical biblical studies, especially those undertaken by David F. Strauss, whose work questioned many important theological concepts. As for Darwin, most found it possible to adapt their theology to the new discoveries. Some turned to day-age theories or gap theories, finding ways to fit an ancient and developing earth into the first chapter of Genesis. What has become creationism, has its earliest foundations in the writings of Ellen G. White, the founder of Seventh Day Adventism, and then further developed by an amateur Adventist geologist named George McCready Price. The whole idea of flood geology emerged out of the thought of White and Price. In time, others, including Morris took up these ideas, they essentially covered up the origins.

Where Darwin’s theory really became problematic was its use outside the scientific realm. Indeed, Darwin understood evolution, natural selection, sexual selection, and the “survival of the fittest” in descriptive ways, not prescriptive ones. Other interpreters of his theories, from Herbert Spencer to Andrew Carnegie to Adolph Hitler, grabbed onto the theory and used it to rationalize and justify projects that had nothing to do with evolutionary theory. These people are what Giberson call’s “Darwin’s Dark Companions.” Ideologies and practices such as social Darwinism, eugenics, the holocaust, racism, are unsustainable extensions that Darwin never countenanced. Unfortunately, opponents of evolution make much of this baggage, while most supporters of evolution would rather ignore it. It is necessary that we deal with this baggage but understand that Darwin never countenanced it. It is unfortunate for all that Darwin has become the scapegoat for any number of ideologies and perceived sins. In the end, it’s not a question of whether or not the theory is true – even if true if it is this dangerous then surely it must be opposed.

For many of us, what we know of this theory is connected to well publicized legal battles – from the Scopes Trial to Dover, PA. In the early days of litigation the issue was bans on teaching evolution. Many states enacted legislation early in the 20th century, like the one in Tennessee, that banned the teaching of evolution. The trial in Dayton, Tennessee, interestingly enough sustained that ban, and led to decades of ignoring evolution in America’s educational system. It was only because of Sputnik that evolution returned to the discussion. Publishers had excised evolution from biology text books to make them more saleable across the country. Sputnik led to new science standards, and the re-introduction of evolution to America’s biology classes. That led to a number of high profile cases that sought to introduce “alternative” explanations – from scientific creationism to intelligent design. Each of these efforts sought to put religion into scientific garb, but the courts saw through the subterfuge, and rejected these efforts as violations of the separation of church and state. Evolution keeps being attacked, and yet each time it wins the argument.

Having set the stage, Giberson returns to the alternatives, first scientific creationism and then to intelligent design (ID). As mentioned earlier, in the 19th century most evangelicals found ways of adapting their reading of scripture to scientific discoveries. But more recently a new effort has been undertaken to develop an alternative theory of origins that puts creation within the last 10,000 years. Scientific creationism, with its flood geology has its origins with the Adventists – Ellen White and George McCready Price. They were joined later by Morris and Whitcomb, who refashioned the arguments in support of a literal six-day creation. They did so by first attacking the geological column, that description of past epochs evidenced by layers of rock. That column suggests development from simple to complex, with the presence of modern humans at the top of the column. They attacked this geology by insisting that everything got laid down, not over the eons, but over night in a universal flood. Pointing to thrust faults, Price and his descendants seek to explain why fossils are out of order. They use the exception as the rule. From there things get rather fanciful – from vapor canopies and more. The Genesis Flood book is, according to Giberson, “two long arguments woven together. On one hand it is “warmed-over Price” without the Adventism, and on the other it is an attack on Bernard Ramm’s progressive creationism, which the authors of that book saw as an unwarranted compromise. Price’s own contribution is hidden, but the attacks on Ramm are not. In the end, their jettisoning of inconvenient science so as to be true to their interpretation of the bible won the day among evangelicals – at least based on total book sales. An interesting note is that Moody Press originally passed on The Genesis Flood, because they assumed the day-age theory to be the generally accepted explanation. That was 1960, however.

In time, their young earth creationism became the “brand-name creationism.” The movement published books, started research centers and colleges, but ultimately this all proved futile when they couldn’t produce any research supporting their views. Many of their purported signs of evidence were proven fraudulent (Paluxy River footprints), and the scientific community responded by challenging their pseudo-science. But for people like Henry Morris, this wasn’t just about science, it was about faith. Morris believed that evolution was a Satanic plot – indeed, he called Satan the original evolutionist. Thus, evolution and Darwin got caught up in an ongoing Culture War, that has yet to end – though the players have largely changed. Ken Ham and Philip Johnson are the new figures in the debate.

While Ken Ham, a former high school teacher – without Morris’s science credentials – continues to hold down the old style scientific creationist plank, the failure in the courts by the creationist people led to a new “bigger-tent” effort. Intelligent Design, which emerged with Philip Johnson, and which in many ways is warmed over Paley, doesn’t take a position on the age of the earth, only on the insufficiency of evolution. There still remain a contingent of young earth enthusiasts, even some like Kurt Wise, with scientific credentials, but as Giberson points out this group admit that they believe in spite of the evidence for evolution. In this new effort, the focus is on getting God back into the equation. The leading voice in this effort is Philip Johnson, a law professor, who makes no bones about his lack of scientific credentials. His mantra is simply that evolution is irredeemably linked to a naturalism that has no room for God and thus is pseudo-science. The Discovery Institute, a well-funded effort, has sought to give credibility to this effort, and it has recruited people like William Dembski – a mathematician -- and Michael Behe, a biochemist to support their insistence that at some point, there needs to be a designer to explain the reality as we find it. Unfortunately, for them, the courts have seen through their efforts and found religion at its heart – despite efforts to cloud the vision. Ultimately, Intelligent Design is a nineteenth century answer to 21st century questions. But that hasn’t slowed them down. Efforts continue, by both young-earthers and ID folk – which has led to a counter-effort by those who would take the completely opposite tactic. The unfortunate result of many of the responses – such as a definition of science issued by the National Association of Biology Teachers, is that further marginalizes religious people otherwise disposed to embracing evolution.

If creationism is religion parading as science, there are expressions of Darwinism and evolutionary thinking that essentially parades as religion. Giberson writes:

“The promotion of evolution – both biological and cosmic – by its champions grows ever more evangelical as time goes by. Proponents sound more and more like preachers.” (p. 174).

Evolutionists such as Carl Sagan, Richard Dawkins, and others have offered their own creation myths, which they offer as an alternative to theistic understandings. Again, the choice is offered, only from the other side.

At the heart of much of the confusion is the definition of science. In the culture war debates, both sides insist that the other side is practicing pseudo-science. Part of the problem is that often the definitions are misunderstood or misused. This problem is exacerbated by distinctions that exist between physics and biology. Karl Popper’s definition of science, which speaks of theses and experiments and falsifiability works well with physics, but not so well with biology, especially evolutionary biology. Giberson, who is a physicist by training, notes that the truth of evolutionary biology is demonstrated in its ability to explain a complex web of information – ranging from the fossil record, distribution of species, comparative anatomy, developmental similarities across species (at one point in our embryological development we have gills), and comparative biochemistry (shared DNA patterns). Creationism cannot explain this information, but evolution can. Thus, when we talk about science, we need to be clear on how it is “testable.”

As a Christian, Giberson wishes to bring together his own faith understandings and his scientific studies. He doesn’t believe that either excludes the other, necessarily. He recognizes that there is not testable way of proving one way or another whether we are here accidentally. There are difficulties on both sides of the question – from the seeming randomness of life on earth to the beauty and intricacies of creation. Faith provides a sense of meaning to reality that evolution simply cannot offer. As for the religious opposition to evolution, it is less about the science and more about the fear that God will be removed from the equation. Giberson, like many of us, believes there is a third option, one that runs between the either/or of the materialists and the creationists. But what role does God play? That is the question – if we are, that is – more than a combination of quarks and leptons. He writes:

If God exists, however, then other possibilities open up. Perhaps the unfolding of history includes a steady infusion of divine creativity under the scientific radar. Perhaps the meaning we encounter in so many different places and so many different ways is not simply an accident of our biology, but a hint that the universe is more than particles and their interactions. (p. 220).

We must take this by faith, but it does offer a different perspective on reality. As a person of faith who accepts the validity of evolutionary biology, I at the same time sense that there is more to the story than simply meets the eye. This is not to embrace a “god of the gaps” explanation of missing links. Like Giberson I understand that today’s gaps could be filled in tomorrow, and when that happens my God must get smaller. But if God is an active player from day one in all that transpires, then perhaps the story is different.

Saving Darwin is a must read. It lays out the issues in as balanced a way possible, for someone who has a stake in the conversation. He lays out the viewpoints and shows where they fall short – on both sides of the equation. In this book, he offers a middle road, one that rejects the either/or ideologies of creationist (Intelligent Design is included here) or materialists. Reading this book should help clarify many of the issues before us!