Reconciling Evolution with Scripture (Part 4)
While I really like how I ended Reconciling Evolution with Scripture (Part 3), I realize that there are issues I have left dangling in the wind. For example, exactly what is I believe? And what do I call it?
I ask these sort of humorously, because I have done enough debating to see the opportunity I left for parsing my words for details that might “get” me on a technicality.
First of all, let me clarify that when I say I believe evolution, my own thinking has evolved somewhat in my own meaning. I apologize for the confusion if you have been reading posts from the past few years of mine on the subject. But, as I learn more, I have to adjust. I do this as both a theologian and a scientists (”layperson” in both, but I still take them seriously). So, understand that any subtle contradictions you might see on this blog in how I view or define evolution is a reflection of my attempt to hone in on what is true. Whatever the level of my success may be in that department, please do not take it as sign that I cannot make up my mind. Acknowledging that I am not God, and that there is always more to understand is not fair to hold against me, or anyone. It is a product of being human.
So, what do I mean by evolution? At the moment (it’s 7:46 AM PST), I refer to whatever process resulted in the ordered fossil record that we see. I do not mean that it can mean Darwinian Godless evolution, or that it cannot. I do mean that that I do not know for sure what process resulted in all that we see. I do not know how much was from following physical laws, nor how much was direct fiddling by God. What I do know is that everything we see appeared, and that God was busy at work to get it all done. So, perhaps I can focus my definition a little more.
Stephen Jones has settled on a perspective where he believes in common descent, but not Darwinian Evolution. What this means to me is that none of the transitions between species resulted from randomness, but from direct interaction by God. To clarify though, he believes that actually took the old species and created the new one directly, then let back into the ecosystem for everything to adjust. It explains why homo sapiens and neanderthals are so similar, yet not descended from each other… they have a common ancestor. However, God created the common ancestor from the preceding species, then created both neanderthals and homo sapiens from that. I am overly simplifying on purpose, and knowingly leaving out other stages and technical names. But, that is my take on Jones’ theory, and while I admit it appeared a bit arbitrary to me at first (about 2 years ago when I discovered him), my understanding of scripture (particularly my discovery that the entire creation week constituted a work week for God toward the single purpose of creating man) has “evolved” more toward Jones’ theory than any other well-developed theory I have found. I may just settle on it, but I need to explain a few things to myself first.
While I am becoming increasingly convinced that God actually physically transformed species to create other species, and did it by fiat rather than a series of otherwise natural mutations, I am not convinced that this was the case every single time, or even most of the time. “God at work” seems to me the most important thing here… when a given species arose, how was God working? Directly transforming something is definitely an excellent candidate. However, so is turning on and off the switches in nature that would result in such transformations on its own.Â
It is like churning butter. I can make butter by churning the cream, but at no time have touched it. I have simply taken advantage of the universe’s physical laws, and focused them on the creation of this butter from the milk I gathered. Were I to have done absolutely nothing, and just let the milk sit, then the appearance of butter was theoretically possible given the right accidents, but it was unlikely to have happened. Now, God could just snap His fingers, and physically transform the milk to butter at a molecular level, and just skip the churning. OR, He can churn, or better yet, set the churning up and let it run somehow, and eventually the butter will form.  It would require a bit of work to make sure the churning didn’t stop or get interrupted, and the side effects of that effort could be numerous and even desirable by God’s reckoning. But, in the end, the butter that God wanted would eventually appear. So, what did God do?  Did He create each species directly from the previous? Or did He rig a churning process to produce the new species? Either way, God was at work.Â
Please understand. I am not really trying to advocate that God was churning. I am just trying to illustrate how reasonable it is to look for physical processes resulting in new species that simultaneously required interference from God. It would explain everything… why atheists see something suggesting fortuitous random mutations occurring through nature, and why Christians observe that they happened too conveniently fast to be Godless.  If both are somewhat right, then the atheists could be seeing the churning process, and Christians could be observing the fact that the churning was started and maintained by God. You take God out, and you still see the physical process of churning, but His absence from the theory would create this mysterious randomness that no one can explain. But, as much as I like this theory, I merely throw it out there as a possibility. I may yet be an advocate, but not today.
Steven Jones is on the other end, theorizing that in every case God took the milk or cream, and directly transformed it into Butter. He skipped the churning. However, the butter really came from the cream, which is why we appear to see a connection between the two… the connection is there to see.
So for today, these are the two positions I see as the most biblical. In my mind, I envision a mixture, but I that is just so I don’t have to decide yet. I want to study things a bit more, but that is where I stand today. We’ll see about tomorrow!