,

",

SPECIAL ISSUE: CREATIONIEVOLUTION AND FAITH

NOTES PROM THE EDITOR
INTRODUCTION TO 'THE SPECIAL ISSUE
SYMPOSIUM: EVOLUTION AND THE BIBLE
Alvin Plant1nga,~,I!Ei!.'fand'i!:.:!!fQI1~IWJ3iJolU!J.on~

_RWiJ.

Howard Van Till, When Faith and Re4son Cooperate

Pattle Pun, Response to Professor Plantitlga
Eman McMullirI, Pu:mting~'s Defense of Special Creation
Alvin Planfinga, Evolution, Neutrality, and Antecedent
Probahftity: A Reply 10 Van Till and McMullin

REVmW
REFEREES FOR VOLUME XX

,3 '

XXI:l

~~POSIUM

God 10 us. And if we.re ."lhu.I".lk aboul "'05<)n, we most .1$0 1>< enthu.ra..tic
~bout ronl'ttlporary natural .dence, which ts a powerful and va.tly Iml'Te$Slve
m."II.~I"tlon of reason. So this i. my que.tlon, given our Reformed prodlvlHes
and tnts apparent cnruc~ whal at< we \0 do? How sh.ll we tlllnk about this
m,lier?

"

When Faith and Reason

Evolution and the Bible

Oash~

I. Whe" F.Uh and Reason Ct.sh

If Ill. qu..tl(.ln \J: stmple, the .n,wer Is enormGusly cliffl<uIt. To think .bout it
properly, one mu't obviously know a groat d~aI of scienc., On Ih. oOwr hand, the
que,uon <rudally Involv .. both philosophy and thtol0!D" OM musl have

Sy Alvin Planting'

My qUestiDO t Impl" how shall We ChrisUan$ d.,l with appartnt <:<>nfllet:l

b<tween faith .nd reo, On. b~lwe.n whAt"'" kJ10w as Chri.ti,ns and wh.t We
know in "thor way between t.athlng 01 the Bibl nd th~ leachings ot sciMC1
As pedal ca.e, how shall
deal wHo ~pp.r.nt contlld. between what the

w.

Bible InitIally ,.em< 10 \ell us .b<>ul ~~. origin ..ncl drvelopmcnt of Ilk, Md what
contemporory "d.nco .eems l<> tell u. aboul lt7 Taken at f.~. voloe, the 'Blbl.
eom. \0 t oh that God ae.led Ihe world relallvely recentty. th.t h. a..ted W.
by way of '''''''''': "p,rat<.or mati on, th.t In another 'cpa,.t. ocl of creal!on,
h. cre.tf:~ .n ons",al human pair, A04m and Eve. and thai tn.SA: OUr orlgi....l
parenl:s d"",be,ed God, th''''", bringing ruinous <:ot.mlly on thoms.1Ye., thelr
posterity and the rest of creation.
ActOrding to (Qnl.mpOf~t) science, on lhe otber hand, the ullivers~ js ~"'.
ceedlngly <>ld-"'me Ui or 16 himon years Qr:so, g;vo or take a billion orfwo. T!\<:
e.rth i. much young~r, mayb. 4. 1/2 bUllon ye.rs old, bul stlll hardly spring
thicken. Primitivelil.
on Olrth perhaps 3112 billion years ago, Py vlnue of
proc ..... tll., Ott completely nawral iJ .0 far not w.!1 under.!oo(/; and sub...
qul.",l /anns allit. deYEloped hom thes< aboriginal form. by woy of nalunl
pro<,'... s, Ine most popular candld,le, beIng p.rh~p$ random genetic mutallon
and ""tural Illon.
, No'" we R.romled Christi.ns a.. wholty In .ome>! about the Bible. We or.
p"'ple 01 the Word; So14 Scriplu," is our cry: W. tal.. Seripture to PC a spedol
",."lat/on from God him.elf. domandlng OUr .1>.olute tWlland 'lI.glanc~. 8ul we
are equoUy enthu.lo.tic aboul rtl!5{I",' God-given pow.rby virtue 01 wlrlch we
have knnwl,dg. of our..lv, Our world, OUr pasl, logic and II\.th~maUC$, right
,nd wwng, and God himself; rea",n ls one of the chief f to", 0/ Ih. Imago of

'l and

toos.

.,Is

aro,.

"riou, .nd penetrating grasp of lh. rolev""l theol0t:lralanQ phllosophlc.:tllssues.

And who omong U$ (Z1J Jill bll111ke that? Certalnty I can'l. (And t~at, liS my
<olr ~. Ralph Mcinerny once .....td In another 1:'<lM..:tlo", is no idl. 'boast.) The
sden\lsls among us don'! ordlno:rily "'we. sufficient grasp of the "levanl plillosophy and tneology; the philosoph=and IheologliN don't know enough scim""l
(ons'quantly, hordly ulyone ts qu.liflecl ,0 ,!'Ook he", with lOa! authority. This
must ba on. 01
are... Where fools !1lih
angels lfar ,,, Inad. Whethu
or no! it I, m a_ where angels (,,'" to IN.d, Ii I.; obvlou>ly.n iI.reI! who", fool$
rush In. I Itop. thIs essay !sa', JuSI o~e IllO"" conlirm>Hon of lhat doW fact.
But Ilrs~ a quid!. g..ture towards the history of our problem. OUT sp.xlflc
probJem-.llh and evolution-has of <ou"",, beell with the church ~nc. Datwlt\.
ian cvotutiC)l\ sl.rt<d tQ aclUeve wid. occepumcc, little more !han a hund:t'e<l
yeats 01)0. And this question /$ only a ,peCal use of two more general questions.
qUUUOllS that the Chrlstian Church h.. laced sInce Its beglnnlngs ntaliy two
inlUcAni.l. .go: fint, what ~
do when the!\! appi!ON Ol be conllkt betw<et
Ihe d.Uvcl1Ulc<!$ 01 la/In Md tho dellveranc.~ Qf t ...,,,) And OIIoth.r question,
"bted but d~\lnct: how shan we eval""\e azu:I re.d to the domwnt'leaclUngs,
Ihe domlNnl Intellectual mollis,'the dommant oommltm.nt, 01 Ihe s<>d<ly itt
whkh w. find ourselves! Th,""" two questiQN;, not alway. dearly dt,ling1llshed,
dominate Ih. writings of the early churcb iothetil hom !:he .=nd conhuy on.
Naturally .no~gn.. there h<:.ve been a variety of re'P'''''.'' The,. I. tempt.tion, fiTS! of aU, to d.clare that there reaUy <an', be llIIy ,;onfild between faIth illld
Nasan. The no-conflict view COmes in two quit" diIfurent """lani A=rdl.ng to
the Ilrst. th.r.l. no such tWng a' truth siml'lidlcr, truth lusl.s ,ucl\: th.", 1$ only
trulh from one or another p.cspecU"o. An e:.:!rome venion of thls view l$ the
medlwal two-tntth theory assodated wIth Av.~. i1I1d :;om' of his folli>wetS.:
"'me QI thest thlnk.1'$ .pp~"'nUy held thot th. same proposition can be true
acrordlng to philoG<lphy or reason, but f.l~ aceordlng /0 Lh.oiogy 6r faith; true .$
$dence but false ~s theology. Tlili1ldl1g hard about til!> ,iew can slly Induce
VCrt's": the Idea, appal<nUy, !.;; that one ought t'/,of/lnn and b.Ueve Ille prupo$iHon IU sdenc~, btlt deny It as I!\<:ololl)'. How yOu .re supposed to do lhat Isn't
c d~... But th. mal" problem I. s.!rnl'ly thai truth Isn't merely truth with "'~ to
"'mC 'Wldpolnt. Indeed, ~n>, attempt 10 oxplaln what Ir"lh from ,l4ndpoi"1
mIght ",,,,,n Inevitably invo)v .. the notion of truth simpliriW.

'1
!

w.

SYMfOS\UM

Arnone contempo",y version ~f this way 01 thinking-Ih. truthfrom.

~slandpolnl w.y "f Ihinklng-t.I>es it; in'pi'~tion from ""nrempo'~ry pny,ks.
To ovtrsimpHly .harnd,;>ly, Ih". f, J problo'll' lighl erns 10 dlspi.y oolh thu
properti'" of. w,vtll\. mudlum and ,Iso th. propcrtic.. of somethinG/h.1 come.
in partida. And or wUt't~ the problem i$: th:Jt lhl.!"se' properties are not HKE', s.)},.
beinl
.nd beiNg "j""T<, wl>kh <,n ...Uy b....,mplllied by Ihe;..un. object;
Ihe problem Is that ., looks/or aU tn~ world as illight ,,,,,'I be both. partfde and.
W've, "<:cording to NIT, Behr, the falher <>1 the Copenhagen inlerpretalion of
quanlum moc".nia, ill. 'O\Olion is to be loond in the Ide. of complt",,,,!.rily. W.
m~st r~rogniJ;. tn.tlh". c.tn be des<riptions 01 the same obj'ct or ph~flOmenon
which are both trot. ,nd ref,vanUy <omplel., but nonethde" such that We can't
Sc" how they could both hold. From OM point of vi.", llg-hl displays the partide
::;et oJ properties; from anot"~r ~oint ()~\I'iew, it di$p~ys the w~v~ properocs.. lNe
con't how both Ihes. <I.scrip!!on, can b. '1\1<, bulin raci they me. Of <0,,-,,",
the Ih<.'O!ogi.:aI'pplic.l!on i, obvious; <he,. is lhe bro.dly :<cien/ilk view of th.i:1gs,
,"d tbe b",.dly religlou. view of [hlng'; both Ott perfectly acceptoble, p.riecily
even though they app..r 10 tontrodict one .noth~r.' And the point of Ike
doctrine is thaI we must I.om 10 IIv. with and lave Ihb ,itu.tiol\.
Bot Ihi> view ''''''Ills nol
mI,,,,,, 10 love. Is Iho Id twl the pcop.nl", in
qu.stion '<:lily 0" inoonsi,tcnl wIth .. ch other, so Ihal U Isn't pos'ible th.t tne
sam. thing
bolh ..1S of properti"" Thon de....-{y enough they
both b.
Correct de<aipUoos 01 In" 111.lIer, .nd the view is simply als . Is the idea insl..d
Ihat while tr.. prop,rtf.. art 'PI"'<nUy lnEonsi.t."" they oren'l ",.Uy inconsi,tent? The" the vi.w might b. correa. b"t wouldn'l be mud! by way 0/ ""'".
being instead noUtlng but. redescription 01 the probfem.
Perhap5' 1110to promising 'ppcoach i> by way of territorial division, lIke that
until recently bi!tv.~n East and West Gtman},1 for instance. \.cJe a$sign some of
the oonceplual terrif<>ry to f.ith and xriptUtC, and some GI it Il) r SOn and
:<cien".Somo qU"tion, fall WIthin the jurisdiction oj Ialth and SCripture; others
within lhat Ot te<.\500n and roence, but nOlH: wlrhin both.. Th~se ljuestiol"t$1 further.
mort/ are su.ch that theIr .If'$W,,'rs eiln"t ronnk,; thf:)' sjmpty ~onCitm di:ffcm.:-nt
"peds 01 the CO'mos. Hence, so long;u there is no illegal t.rriton.l <ncroa,h.
ment, there will h no po"lbllily of contradiction 0< \ncomp~tibnny betw.o!n th,
H:a"hingti of faith olnd thO$~ 01 sdtnc~. con.mct arlse~ only when then! ~ trt':Sp;u:L
viol.lion ~f t..ri!ri>lu"<gri'Y, by One 'ide Or the alner. A Hmit.d version or Ihls
approach is ",paused by ""' coU.'lI"'" Howard "an TIll in The I'pu,ln Otty.
Scimce, h. "'1'" prop.,ly d I, only wllh m.Ite" ;nt<r"4i to the oniyer,.,. It doal>
with the proportie>, behaVior and histo!), of the eosmo, and the "bj.cts to b.
found ;'f~rein; but it Can teU u.s nothing .boul Ih. pllrpoS( 01 the WIlversc. "r aboul
its 'igni{iDlffC!, Of I", !""""""lrt. or li:!; >lOfuS; Ihal tcrritQI'}' has l>een , ... erved for

gr''''

"'''''',:1.

."y

"'.'1

w""

IPerh.l~ tht $h.r!;'wdt-"$t conitn;po-ral)' $poknrtl.ln l.vrlbit view l,s tbe IJ{f:! Donild MAcKay
in Tht eEoc",,"rt I"",S" tI ClrriJt,," i'''''Fx/iO"
lLondn: In!<rY>r<ity ]'",,<.197.\1
,nd "C""'pl.",<nbri'Y In Scientific ..d Thootogi"] Thlnkins" In Z!/gon, s.,pt. 1914,

$,,,,,,"

pp.llS fl.

..----------

----------~

Smptur<. Th< albic .ddress,.,. 1l:;eJ.f only to qu",ti""" 01 e>:t<=l relationships.

relationships of ihe <osmO$ or til. HunS'! It contains (0 thIngs b<yond it, such as
God. Scrlpture d.;ili with the slatu<, 0 rigin.. value. 8O\1ernan", .nd p~..,.,.. ~ f the
<osmDS and Ih. thin/;'!t contains, b~t
nothing of their propert'''' behavior or

""y'

hlIwry.

'

Now von TIll me~ns 10 Umlt Ih_ claims to the prehJSiory It.,., history pnof to
the'.ppearan.:" 01 human belnp) oj the cosmos; he d""" "", hold th.t sde.t) a.t\d
Smptll""""Mol both .peak on lIUllter of huma" histo/)': ()( ',,:,mpl.~This !n...-.s
th., his vi.", do<:sn', give \)$' g,,,,,r'll approad> to )1r/l!lJ1 fmc <:onfllcts betw=
,dence and Saipturc; for It says noth.i:1g .bout such "PP",ent wnllkls that
pertcl.\ to malien 01 hllllW1 hI,tory, >;>f (0 =ltlU$ ronc~ming how things w~.
gone In the COStl\OS sino. the ~P?""""'ce "f hu)Jl.l1J1 bemS". Van Till U",{t, hi:!
approv;a! of th.!s .ppn:>~d! for Vert govd ",.son; tJhrt .., g",:,~ <lai~, the
ront<:ntlon Ihat Scrlpru ... ilnd. science never 'pc.I; on tbe s,lIno (OP," "l obvio",<!y
much too sImple, Flr.a, there ac. many que.tions sud> tll4t both science Ital::en .
broadly) and the BJbJ~ l'~rport to aNwer them: lor ""'Inpl IV., Ilwl S<Idt "

pmon .. AImlhamI W"" JC$IIS 0uUt crudfidl Has a"yo,," ""'" ""'fnl fi::Ji in Ik s.a of
(;alike? D.iI.X hauls am fo;4t1ind d, even i1 w. =!:rict or Uron the claim, in vao
TIl1'~ w'Y, to tho pret..i:story of the 00,,,11).$, we :;till lind questions. that both
Soipl~re and sclenO! '" 10 answer. for .,.mple, H.. ill< ="'" crisI.. firr II>!
("finUc mdclt oj lim:]
Furthe~. !t is of the Elrsl ImporWle~ 10 ""e truJ.! when we remove /Jut l1mil:>\lon (ilI'Id here. of <our;e. van Till would ogne), then Jj isn't true at .U that tha
Bible t;,ll; only about ,tatu<, volue, purpose, origin, ;U)d the like. It tells \IS .l;>out
Abtllham, lor exn.ntpl<, and ",,\ only ab<lut h.is .tatus :md purpose; It tells U$ he
Uv.,J in. cerilWl plllc<, made the long journey from Ur to Canaan. wd wii'
Sarah who b.ld Sl.)fl whoo sh< WlIS really mud> too old, proposed at one lime to
",crllk, ls.aAc In ob.di.:,.ec to the Lord, and 50 on, Even mGr, imFortant, the Bibl.
tell; u& aboutJ 0,<1' Christ. ""0 not simply about his origin and ,;gnln.:ance,1t dQ,z
lell \IS about those things, ll1Id of COUl"S>: they are of obwlutely crudallmpo1't>.rlo>
to itH.nlra!tne_g.: built "Iso tells u. mud! .1"" aboul Christ. We leWll what h.
did, he I'ruched And taught, <hew I.uge =wd., performed ltljncl~ It tens us
<lult he W,$ audile", th.t h. died, .nd that he r~ from the dead. Some 01 th.
teacidngs moot ",nlra! 10 Scripture and 10 the ChrisU"" faith tcUtIS of amaet.
hlst;;rlc:a.l
the)' i;h .-.fore tell US of the ht.lW)' and properties of th.i:1&1
wilh.i:1 t:lI. ro,mos. ell,;,t died and then rO'" again; thi> Mis us mud! aboul """.
"J the entities wllhln Ih. (o.mos.1t tells U5 something .b:lut th. history, prop,
tie$, o.... d bena,';'or 01 IUs body, for exampl" n.m.Jy~ that it w.s dead and then
1,,1 on allve. n thus tell:; U$ that :lOme of the things in ill. cosmo' b.h.v,d very
dIfferently on !his c=slon from the way in which they or.'""lily behav~. The
same
01 oou=. for the A:;:...mon of Christ.. and lor Ihe many >;>Ih';r mu.clos
reported !n Scripture,

"",,,Is;

8'''''''

11

So we c~n't .Iarl, I think, by ded,ring that the teachings of ",ntemporary

.;{. ,.scleoco lnnot<;onl1lcl witil the delive,.,,, 01 the faitl\; obviously J:hey can. Wo

c,,,'t ."".lbly dedde in .dv,n", wh.t topk. Scripture c.n or does speak on:
In,l<ad w. ;"ust look and
And In fact it speaks on an ,""ormou, val1ety 0/
topio.!< and qutlons->omo h:>vlng to do wIth origIn, govem.nce, $tatus and the
like, but many mOf< h,vIng to do with wbat happened wlthfn the cosmo. at.
p,rtkular plac. and tlm ""d honce with what aIS<) f.IIs wllhln Ihe province 01
""knee. It 'p..k;l 01 hIsiory, 01 mind.., 01 communl",tloM (rom the Lor<!,. of
wl"t peofM dld .nd didn't do, 01 b'tll he.llng>. death" "'sueredloM, Qnd
thou""n. other thlngs.
LeI'. look a little deepor. A$ ev.ryan. knows, tho" ~re vario~.lnteU.ctu~1 or

,.e.

cogniHvt! poWetb~ beHd~produdng m~dHmu;m5 or pcw~. v.. rious

$Ottrt;:Ci

of

peUd and knowledge. For "".mple. there are P'''''ption, memory, !"Qu",lon, and
testlmony, or what We [earn Irom olhers. The... is abo rea>on, .aken nanowly ".
the 'Ouroo ollogk and m'l'hematic$, and .."""" I.ken IIlOre 'broadly i1$lI\cllldlng
percepllon, testimony and roth ind~<tl'e and deductive proc....,: it !. r~_n
taken Ihl. bro.der way Ihal!s the ""O"'e of .done . Hut Ihe serious Christian will
all>:> lake our gra.p 01 Scrlptu,.. to be " proper '0\'' of kIlowledge and IU$tifi.d
belie!. Just how d.,., S<ripture wer).; " 'Ource 01 proper b.llel1 An
good as any I know Wa. g:lvf!l\ by !ohn Calvin lnd end<>tsC-d by t/te.Belglc
Conl.sslon; this Is Calvi,,'s doctrine ofthe Internal T~tirnony of the Holy SplriL
This is ('><:loafing and Important ,ontribu~"n that do n't get nearly the
,U ... tic" it d ....ws; bOI here r do.'t have Hme to go inro the moU<r. What.ver
Ihe meeho.n!'I11, the Lord speoks ro Us !n Scrlprur..
And 01 <ourse wh I~. Lord propose. lor oUr belief is indeed wit., we

."'we. ""

""auld believe. Hero there wUl bnthusilJS~<t .greement on all sides. Some

ronclude, however, thai when Ihero is a )niUet b"lw.~ Scriptur. (0' our grasp
01 II) and :;clen, We ma.t TOfect .\rien,.; turh conflict automatlC<llly >bows
sclon to b. Wrong..1 lsl on Ihe pointln qU<':Ition.ln the Immortlll word.>lf ilIe
inspired Scolllsh b.rd WIIH.m E. McGon~galL poel .nd tr.sedllU1,
When fallh "nd ' on d.sh,
L,I re.son go to .m h.

But dearly thl, <Dodusion doe",'t follow. The Lml ClIn't make a mlstakt: !~Ir
en"ugh; but we can. Our grasp Q! what lbe Lord propos.. to teach us can 'be faUltY
and flawed In ~ thousand ways. ThI, I, obvlous,lI only b<ooausc 01 the wlde:;preild
disagreement .mong 'erioul Christians., 10 just what it Is the LG1d d()<S prop""
lor OUr beli.! In one Or .nother portion 01 Sclipture. Srnplutt Ii indeed pe,."pIcuous:what it l<taches with r.spec"" the way of Jalvation Is Indeed such that she
whQ runs may ttl.d. It I, also deaT, howeveT. Ihal seriou" w.I1-lnt'n~on.d
Chrl>tian, """ dis.agre. os to whot the te.chlng ofJ<;riplur., at one.point or
another, ",.lly t.. Scripture I~ Inerrant: the Lord makes M ml,takes; wb.t h.
pTOp<lS$ for QUr beUd l! what We Qughl to believe. S.dly enougb, how,,,,,,, oor
grasp of whol he PtQP"'" to te.d. \, f.!libl . He",e We ca"",,! 'Imply !d~r,tlly the
teathing of Scriptu"l with OUr gr.. p of that t chlng: we must ruefully bear In

mind the p;",{bllity thai we are mist,kIll\. "He .. Isth.earth on Its fou"d.tions; It
(;1n never ..1'.' moVed," i<\yi Ihe Psalmist.' 5<Jmt' sWtenlh",entury Chrtstians took
the Lord to b. t.~lng 1\""" !:hot Ihe ..rth "eiJ:her rotates 01\ i;, ax!, nor g_
.ro""d th. $""1 an<rUley were mlitaken.
So we am't identity O\U' IUld",;t."ding or grasp of th. leQtning 01 S<rlpt:l.l.re
wIth the t dIlng Qf Scripture.; hence we c;tn't autom.tially ......m. thol roT1iUd
between what We SI as J:he te.chlnii of Sclplu.t<e, ""d what We =no to have
le.m.~ In '>o11'U! other way mut alway. be resolved In favor ~f the furmef. Sadly
enough, we bolve no gworantee that on every point o~r grasp 01 what Scripture
teacn., Is ~"mlct; hence It Is pc<s!ble that ou. grasp 01 the teaching 01 Script"", b<
corr..:ted or Improved by wh<it w. leam In some oth.,. wsy-by woy of .de_,
lor example.
But nelJ:her, 01 ,ouroe, ClIJl w. Identify ~ith.t the Ulrront deliverances Qf
rea>t;n or ur b.. t contemp(lruy
(or philosophy, or h!J;tory, or literary
criticism. Or InleUodual e.Eto"" of a'fly kind) with tbe truth. No doubt whal reason.
,..kou bro.clly, teaches b by and Large ...llitblc; Ws Is, 1 ~hoold Ihlnk. , .",....
q!1,ncc of the fact wI w.lutve b",n created in the lmaj;e of God. Of COUI'S<_
mU$! red>n "itn the f;Uj and its noetic .ff.ds; but tho SOJi51'ble view here, ovenll.
Is tbolt tho deliverances of reason are (<>, the most part...,llitble, P<:rhap. they are
mo.t rellable with respect to .uet. common evo'Yday ludgmerus iI.$ that th<.... II:n!
peopl~ heN, that Ills cQld outside, J:hat Ihe p<>lnterpolnts to 4, tn,t 1 had b....lduI

S(:\,,,,,

this morning.

wt 2+1-3, and

$0

on; perhaps they

I... ...,llit\ll. whe" It ",mes

. to matten;near Ih.l(mlu of oW'abll!~ .., as wlthcertalrt questions in :<etthoo'Y,Ql

In are"" for which our faculties don't see", to bt! I'rli:n.arlly designed, ilSl""'bap$ in
the world of qu.ntum m.~. By wd large, how<!IIe:, and over ononnOU$
swatt:he'$ of <ognJUve territory, Tl''OSOn I. reliable,
Still, we can't simply embrace tum!nt $cl''''ct (C' CUI'N1lI. Mythingel>< .'ther)
as the truth. We CilI1't Idontlly J:h. leacltlng 01 Scriprur. wiJ:h our grasp of It
because sed"", and ..ns!ble Chrlslians dis.gr .. "-' to what Scripture teadl..: ~
C/llI" Identity Ih. <tUtent tea<:hln&$ of sdenee wlJ:h !lulh. be<:ausc the cumuli
t"adlIng. of science clutnge. And th.y don't dulnge just by the aoo.unul.tJQn 01
new fa<ts, A few ye.rs bad; the domln.,,! ,ojew among "stmnome.. and =moJo.
gilts was th.t the un!veJ'&e !J; inflnlldy old; at present the prey.rung opinion is
tteat the wUvexse began some l.6 bIlllc>n y.ars ag"; but new thm ..,. straw. !n the
wind suggesting l 5tep biJ:k (owards the fd .... that there \Val no b<oginnlns.< Or
think of the .lIOnl\OU$ ~ rom nlneV!cr>th 10 twentiJltn.<entury physic;. A
prevalllng' ..tI!tude .! the end of ill<, nineteenth century W;l!; thAt l'hysb was
pretty well acx:ompllshed; th.1'Il w .... a few loose en.u here and there 10 tie up and
few mopplns up operatlOl\S left to do, but the fundament.l lineaments Md
clwacter!st!cs of phY;l~ .eolIty had beel\ desalb<d. And _ aU kIlow whot
bolppen<l<i ~ext.
'1'.. 11)4 v~ S.
Stephan H.>wkl.g. A Brill Hi$lo'll ojn"" (New York: Bantam Moo", 1938). pp, 115 a

'$0.

.,

1.3.

14
.,',

cnfh.ti~n Schol.ut RtvJtw

,.

SYMPOSIUM

As [s;>ld sb"...., we <lln't automalfeally a'">ume thai when the", Is <onflkt

between $den and our gnup of tb. t.aching oJ'Scriph',.... It I, ,donee Iha! Is
Wrong ""d mu,l give w'y, But the 5.rn. holds vi", U,,"$oIl: when there Is a comlkt
b.I"'n our grp of In. teaching 01 Scripture and Cllrrent >den.:<!, We can't
.,.umeu.a\ it Is OUr intnpret.tion ofS<ripturc trn.t I, al faull.1I Q)~ldb. th.t.. but
it do ..n't haD< to be; it could b. beoa:u,e of some mislake or now In current science.
Th. altilude! mean tD rejoct W<lS exp,...."d by. group oI Sl.'rious Christians as far
back as 1332, wh.n deep time wa, first being dls<overi:d; '11 sound sden;;;,
.pp"", to conlt.diet the Bibl"," they said. "we moy be JUT< that !I is OOr
1nte'Pt'OtatlM 01 the Bible tnat I. ot tault.'" To retum to Ih. greal poot
McGon.goO.

both human nature and ""me of the rest of the world. A\ l.as! one of ih_
clalm.;-lhe claim that the unl~.rs. is young-t. ~ery hard to "'lila,. wllh
wui.1y of typ'" of sci,nUde ""Idence; g>loslcal, pall><lntologkal, co.mological
ond s<> on. NOl'lethc!e a S<:11s!ble pe""''' might be convinced. afi.r ""reiul .nd
prayerful 5hudy oi the Saipture" that wbt the Lord leac:h,.. th.".. impU... that
thls evidence 1$ mlsleadlng and thl!t ns a mal(;!r of fad the earth re.Uy Is very
young. So fa: as [ can see, thtlre ls noth.ins to lllh this oot 0$ .ulo.... tlcaUy
pathoioglOll or Imttlonil or ltr.,;pon,lbJ. or stupId.
And of cour;;e lhll;:IOrt of view can be aeveloped In more subtl. and 1>,..,K<cl
deW!. Por ",""lnplc, the above t.achinS" may I>e graded "ito oesped to the
probabWty trn.1 they ",ally, are whot Ih. Lord Intends U$ to k.un !rom early
Con.,,;!!;. Most cl ....., perhl!ps, 16 that God quted the world, so thai U "",d
w'''Yihlng !xl it depends upon hlm and nelther It no, anyl:hlng In It h"" ~ for
on lnHnlt. slntc:h 01 tiule. Next clearest. p.!rhaps. Is that there was an original
hutnan pUt'who slMed lind throll!:h wholle .Innlrig dls.lster befell both _and
n.tur.i tor tlUs Inlte&ted to not only herot>ut in m.my "thor pl.""" in ScrlptuIl!.
That humankind wu ~.m..ly (u.ted Is p.mapsi= clearly Mugh~ thai ,,"my
other I:lnds of living I>e!ngs were ;ep.....My a.ated might be .ttlI I<:is dMrly
110gn\; that the rth Is young, slill,l'" clearly t.>ughL One who a(cepied all or
th~e !h1l$!S ought to be muclr. mo," t.()nlIdel\l of some khan of oth.rs-both
be<:il""~ oJ' the scleni:lfl~ evidence ogaWt some 01 thm, "nd b;,cau54! some are
mud; mare dearly !he \e;lch!ngo of Scipture Ihatr "then. 1 d" nol mean to
end/mc !he viI!'" that all of th.se propositlOM are !:rue: but Ii Isn't JuSt silly or
ltrallonal to do so' One need not be ianatlc, 01' a Plal EMtber. or an ~t
Fundamentallstin order 10 hold 11, rn my judgment the view!!; mIstaken, beca1lSe 1
t.:lke th. ~V!den," (OT o:n old earth to be sl;rong and the wmant I", \lv; view thaI
Ihe Lord teoc.h e:;!he! the rth Is young to be relllt:!wl;y w..aL Bu t th""" /I> dgwel\t:s
ore nol oIrnpl)' o!>t>/QU;I, aT inmwble. or such Ihl!,t "'yone with any $eI13e wllJ
aulom.lleally be obllged Ie egr.e,

When faith and reaSOn cl.<h

'Tis failh wu.t go bl sm.,h. '

!his

attitude-Ill< belie/that wh.n tMr. is a conilict, th_ prohl.", must

!n"'lY!>'y U. with ~ur !nl'l'J',elatlon of Scripture, so ihl!t th' corn<;t COlU$e U
I:-"Y$ to modify I~'I und'''!aJldlng in s1.l~h a WAy a. 10 a"OJY\lnod.te <:UlTen!
$Q.nc..... ts every blt ~$ d.pJorabl. as the opposite error, No dOubt scionc, can
corr;l OUr grasp 0/ Scripture: bUI Scripture COIn abo (ofY~ct cIlITenl scionce. If, for
ex.",plo, CUTtenl <den", we,. to return 10 Ih. vl<w that Ih. world h~s no
beginning, and Is InHniiely old. thelt curren!
would be wrong.
So what, predsejy, must we do !n .ueh a sltuatlon1 Wllleh dQ We go wilh'
faith or ""SOn? Moro ex"tly, which do "". go with, lOur IP"'P 01 Scripture o~
cu""nl $denee?1 do,,'l know of any inlallible rule, or wen any pretty ~U.bl,
general redpe. All we am do I. wclgn and evaluate Ihe reI. live w.nani, the
reltttlv. back!n!) 01 ,trength. of Ih. (Oollidlng leachlngs. W. must do our pes' to
appl'thend ""th the !."hlngs 01 Scripture Md the deliverances 01 re"""ll; In
elt!)(!l"=' w. wj!nuwe much more warrant [o'''''tne .pparent teathillg> thon fDr
oth.,.. II m.y be h.rd ;0 .., just wh,tthe Lord propo"", to tch UJi In the Song 01
Solomon or Old T~tam.ni ge"e.!og;",; ttls vastly ea,]er to see what he propose:;
to teach us lbe Gospel aount, 01 Christ's ro;surrcrtion Irom tho dead. On the
other side: It 1$ cleo, Ihat among !he deliverance. of rC.""n Is the propo.llion th.1
Ih: ..rln IS round rather than flat; ill, enormously harder 10 be ,ure, however,
ih t ronlelnpor>ry quantum 'Mehanks, t.ken reali,tlcally, has thing, righI.' We
ake os careful an tim". a. we <an 01 the dCllTecs of W..-rMI of the
nillding dodrine.) We may then
Judgment as to where the bal.nco 01
probabUlty U'$, or .Hemative!y. We may suspend Judgment. An.r.1I, we don'\
h4~ 10 have a vlow on oU tM,. mailers.
Let me illustrate from ,the topic under dlsrussl6jl, Consider that list 01 .1'1'.....
.,t tcoohlngs Cenesjs: that God ka.< I;res!ed the world, that the ..anh Is young.
that human betng:; and many different kind$ of plant, and animals We,. ,cp
"ately cre.led, .nd th.1 ther~ Wa, an Qrlgin~1 hum.n p.;r whose 'in h... aftllcte~

ode",.

u:

:u.t. n:

In''''

0;

'OlrWW. ~ 1!!)2. I" 437,

~Hert tnt W()rk of Bou Volin Fr;\l.uen Is partIcWilrly instructive,

IL F.ilh alld E""lulion

I
j
I'

So I ClJ\ properly correct my \;",V as to wrn.t "'son le<lc:hu;; by appoeallng tQ

my understanding of Scripture; and I can properly corr'! my \lnderstandlng of
Scriplwe"by 'ppeallng to the 1chinS" of reason. It 15 of the MIl importanc.,
however, !hal We correctly itlmtify the ",!evant tea dungs o! reason. Hen! rWl>nl to
tum dl!ectly to tbe p~nt proble"" tne apparnt disparity hetw..,n what Scrip1te lUll! science tea.;h us about the anSin illld development of Ufe. Like lU\y g90d
Christi"", Reformed ptueh<t, I have three points hew. l'{l'$t, ! <hall "'guo !lal the
theo.ry 01 ""olullon b by no means relislQusly or theologiailly ne.,traL ~d, r
want toa;;l<h(lw w~ ChrlsUilfl$ mould In
think .bout evolution; howptobabl<
I$I~ AIIlhings ~olUld.r~d, tNt the Crand Evolul:lon.ory Hyp"lhr!$ls Is truel And
third, ! WlU\1 to m<il! remul<
how. as I :;e. I~ our b1te!lectuab and
.~dernlG$ 'lht>uld >efVe \IS, the Christi.n colr\munU")I, In this are..

r.ct

.""U!

I ;;

.. '16

,c

,A.

1)Or~IiQn rtJigio"'ly Nw'ruli

Chrl~(.bn Scholu"~

Rev!!'!w

SYMI'OSlUM

eourtroom dram.; one such !lU1-lhe spectacul.r &copes trial ol1925-has 'l>een
made tlu; subJect of on extremely popul~r Iilm. Fundamentalists regard ","olulion
lIS the work of the l),vlL In ~Qjd.ml on the other lumd, 1I Is .n Idol of tne
cQ"l~mpCltary tribe; It serves as a shibboleth, Dtm\!.. I"", disangulshlng Ihe
Ignorant and bigoted fundamentalist soarn fro", the properly accultu,.",<! and
sclentlJically receptIve sheep, App1l1'tntly thli IIlrml$ test extends far boyond Ihe
(on61\0$ 01 thIs t.,.,.,strlal globe, """,ding to Ih. Oxfo.rd biologist Richard o.w-,
klns, uri superior m.lul1l$ from 'p'''' <'II'" vl>lt earth, Ih. fft.. , ques!!on Ihoy will
a,1<. In ord.. to
the level of our cMllullao. Is: 'Have they discovered
.v"lutlonyetr" Indeed rolUlY althe oxperts--,or .>:ample, D~wkin.. WlIIlam
Pwvine, Stephen Gould-<lisplay a ""It oj r<Mili!on al the v"'Y IdeJ of sptctal
"",.don by Gad. 11511 this Idea a not merely not good sdeMe. but somehow a bit
oDscen., or at I..., UllJ><em!y; It l>orclen on thalmmoral; II Is worthy of ~
and e<>ntempl. In some drdes, eonf<!$Sin8 to flIldlng .vi>lu~on .itr!lctlv<! will S;>t
yDI:l dlsappNval and o&i:rad$m Md may "'''' Y~1J your Job; In othen;. ""n~g
dOllbl;l .b<lut evoludon wllJ hav.; the ..me doJ~ful eff<:ct. In Da:rwin's day, some
$usge~d !hat It wa,ull wehnd good to dhcuSHv<)luiJ()n In the universllfe;iI.l\d
among the Dlzn"~r:nH; !hoy thought public dl~ssion unwise, no_vet; fur il
would bH shame If the lower cL>s.<es found out .I>oul It. Now, lronlally enough,
the shoe Is :;omellme! o/>. the other foo~ It I. the devolees 01 "",Iutlon who
sometimes ""press the {e", that public dhcusston or doubl' and diffi<ultl.:; with
~volutlon ,,,uld haVlj harmful poIItkal cl!'cds."
. So why all the furor? the answer Is obVIous: evolution h.., deep rellgiow>
connections; deep ronne<tlons with how we undeT';lland OON'lv .. at the !I\O$\
Iund.men"'ll"v.!. Many evangeilcals and lundamentallst. 'ee in It" th,,,,,t !o the
fallh; they don't want It taught ,0. Ihili children. .t any ,ole as sciC'T\~flcally
estabUsh.d Iacl. and they ~e III:cepl.no!!. of It lIS <orroding proper ~tilJ'\(e 0(
the 8lble, On the o!lu;, sid", amoog the s.;.;ularl'l:$, ""olulion t'ul'lctio"," ilS' myth,
!n a I.~I sen.se of thalletm: I> ,bored Wil.y of understanding our;;e!v,", at tile
de.p level of ...lIgl01l, d~.p Inletpret.!fun 01 ourselves to oUISeI",., a way of
t~Ult1g us why w< are h.re, where we come from ..... d wh~ ... we are going_
It w.a _.r'ling In tha capadly who" RIchard Dawkins (a=rdins to Pete,
19tdawAr, "one of the "''l5t brllliant of tho risIng generation 0/ biQlogists") l...,..d
over and remarked to ;., J. Ayer at one of ihbs.e elegant, Qf\d1 ...11t, blbuk>a.
Oxford diMe.. th.1t he couldn't Imagine lxllng an atheist before 1859 (Ih~ year
Darwin', Origin oj S~ I!<l$ publisMd); "4lthough alhelsm might have bom
logkol1y tenable before Darwin," >aId he, "Darwin m,de il p"ssiblc to bo an
lnl.Uectually fulliUed ithili~'" (leI me recGmmend Oawld",' book to Y(II!' il
{s. brilliantly wrltte", untaUlJ>gly fascinQtlng, and~ulterly wrongh... ded. 11 wa$

A"ordlng 10 a popular contemporary myth, sdenee is cool, r"",on.d,

wholly diopos.ional. atlemp! tl) liguT~ oul the trulh ab<lut oursel""s and our
world, <ntitely independont of reUgion, or !drol~gy, or moral convictl""", or
t~l'Olo/)ical commltmenls.i belle" tM. I, deeply ml.mkom I'<ltlowlng AU8'lstine
(and Al>... ham KUyper, Hermon Dooy<"..,d, HaTty Jellemo, Henry Stob and
other Reformed tnin"""), I believe thol lhere Is ooollict, a battl. between Ihe
Civllos Dd, thoCi!}' of God, and theeUy of the WQdd. As. matt.ro! n.c~ wh.t wo
have, Ilhlnk.ls thrway b.1l1e. 01'1 the One hand th.", I. rotennl,l Naturalism,
vlew~olngback to the .ndent ""'rId, a view a.cording to which lher.1s no God,
n_tuff!' I!! ~U there: hoi and mankind is to be und<:rstocd as a plrtQf nature. Second,
the", j~ what I
,:U . ~nllght.nmenl Humanism': we ~ould .lso caU It 'Enllghl_
enment Sub]ecl!Vl.m or Enllghtenment AnU!1!oJiom': lhis way of thInking goes
back substantially to Ih. great ,'ghleenlh."enIUry ~nlight.nm.nl philosopher
Immanuel &'nl. A<cordlng to its contra I '.nel, It Is ",oJly
hum.n beings, w<
men a.nd women, WOQ struclun; the warld, who or. responslbl. for 11:5 fundamental outliM and lineaments. N~hI,oIl'y enough,. vlew.$ .tartllng llS thli ~om~ In
several (orms. AcrordinS to lean P.ul Sartre and ills exlslontlallst frlend~ We do
Ihl; w~rldtruclUri!l!l treely and Indlvldu,IlYi .ccording to Ludwig Wlttsensteln
and lll~ follow." we ao it eommunally and by wiy of langu.~ accordlog to
Kant hunseJf [Ils done by tht transcendental.go whkb, Oddly enough, Is ne!ther
one nor Jnany. bell\g ilsd/lh. ~ourc< of the one-many structure of the world. So
twi) of the partles !Olhls thr.eway ool\tes, are P~IeMial N.,,,,a);'m and Enlisht.
etlITIen! Bumanl$ll1; the third party;ol <0=., 1$ Cbrl>tian theism. 0/ cou ... there
are many unthlnl:ing and ilI<onccived combin.tlons. milch blurring of Unes,
many :ross ttl"""ts and edd!e3, ",any halfway houses, muck haIling betw.en
two "pm Ions. Nevertheless I think Ihese are tne three b.slc <<;ntettl?",a')' WeiiIem ways of looking .1 reality, thrte baslcillly re/lgw"" w.ys of vl.w!1lg oll,sclv..
"Del the wodd, Th. ccoRlet is real, and 01 profound importanc., Tn. .t.ke..
furthermore, .r. hlg!\; Ihls Is bailie lot men'$ ,",uls.
, Now It would be o>,o:;,i",.ly ""lve to lhink thai oontemporory science 15
religlowly and theQlogically neutraL sian dIng serenely above thls battl. and
wholly Irrdev.nt .<:> it. Porh.p' pari. of .science arc like thai: rn.th~m.UC$, for
...ample, md perh.ps phys!", or pall, of pbystcs-.lthougb even In th.. clINas
th,,,, ate oonnecllon,J Oth. , p.rt. ,re obviously and de.ply involved In thls
bottl., and Ihe closer th~ !:denee In qu..tion Is 10 what is distinctively hUman, the
de<pcr the lnvolv.ment,

as''''

sm:n

w.

tum to the bil of scitn", in quo,lion, .he Iheory 01 evolution pJay '.
fason.Hng and crudal rei. in <ontemporory Wes,ern culture. Th~ enormous
controvmy .bout II Is what I, most sldkIng. > controversy th.t goes back
10 Darwin and connnue, full 10"'" loday. EvolutIon i$ th. r~gul.r sublett of

:As with iJlhlltforiJl Afl,d COtlJitru.;Hvlsl: mJth~m"Hlc;.ldeOlrUUl; In!(!rp(tt~tlon.s of quantum

echanl"" and BdJ Ih''''''tle.l qu."lo", >bo,l[ Inform.lwn Iflnsfor vlolatl.rts rdollvklte
<:nlUtr.llnio vdodly,

--------- ...,----------------------------------------

11.

Ii

'Thu~ ",.(,,,dui~ 10 "'"thony Jll....., I<> ".u esl t".t Ihere Is ",.1 doubt ,I>oUl ",.Ml<>n 1010

"',",pi Ih, ~4.lh,

'lU<h<rd O.wldr.$, The Blind Wok1r..wr [Lendqn o.nd Now Varic W. W. Norton .nd Co..

19(6), ~P...6:~ 1.

_ " ____-

Chnstl~n 5<;:lu;I',a{$

:..

Rt;drw

"18,', ' ,.econd on the Britis.h oest-s.ller Ii'l for SOme con.idtrJf;M timo, second only 10
,:', , ,

, ' Mami. Jcnl;ins' Hip and Thigh Did.) Daw\;ln. 80t> oil'
AU .j)ppe,J~t\,~ to tn: CO!1tr.)ry~ t~e ~nly willthm,)k~r

'n.

nilhJrl~ is lh~ bllnd (t:)1(C~ o(

pJ\Y${,;s. J.!bfl. dfop!oyt!d ;0 ,lj vcry $ptd,llt W.l)'. A trut w.b::hmex~r lI,as fOro:$Tghl: he dCS1Sht;
his: roSS a{ld ,pri(l~ i.nd plan;; thddl'lte!('QOhedl~n.s. with i futute p'U~ In hls mInd~1
ty~. N,turJl s.e:IKilen, the: blind, lIn('()nscioul lut~m.alk procl!$!,i whIc-h D.H'wJn d~veudl
a(\d wille" W~ TlGW know l!l the txptll.n~U{)i1. tDr'lhe- tXht~li~ IfInrJ ~p~ren(.ty pUrpo$tfuJ
Ionn of,Ll Ufe. hilA flt) p\JtpOk in mInd. tt has 111) mInd -1l1d no mind's ~y~, It d4'S nOot plan
fOr Ih.
ho. no
no (o",igh/" no ,Igbl_t >11. tfltGln "" ..;<110 pl.y Ih. rol. of

"".".It

vW,",

w'l<hlN.~<r In nolure. tIl, th, Wi wM<lmt.u.tr

rpo ,~

volutlon was funclloning in tJu. s.me myihk capad!)' In the remark 01 the
i.mo", wOlogi,;1 G. G. Slmp""n: .lIer po,ing the que,lIon "Wh.t Ii man?" h
""we,"- ''The point I wanl 10 make now Is that "II attempts to bl\Swer trot
qu .. llon b.lo,.1859 ore worth I,,,. and th.t we wm b. better off If w.lgnore lhem
cDmpletely."'o 01 roUI'S' it .1.., lunetion. in th.t pad!)' bt servin/> as" litmus
losl to distinguish th. isn<>rant fund,ment.Ust, from the prop.ely enllghl"".d
0)8'"""""/1; Jt {uncnons in th ...",e .... y in mllI'y of the d.bal 1n and out of the
court., " 10 whether !t should be taugltl in the ""hools, whether othe.>: vie".
should be given equ.l tim., and the Ilk . Thu~ Mlch 1 Ru~ "the light agaln.t
creationism Is fight fo, all kIlow]edge, and th.t battle Com b. won if we All work
lQ:see th.1 D,"";,,!,m. whkh has had a great" " has an Wen greater fulur~."n
Th.....n~.] point he", is re~Uy D.wkln.' point: D.rwinlsm, the Gr.nd
EvoluHoMry St~ry, make, It poS>ible to b. all inlellectually fulliU.d lU1clst. Whal
he mean. Is ,impl. ""ugh, If you are Chrisl!.", or a theisl of some other ldnd,
you hav TOady an.WOr 10 Ih. question. how dId it aU happen? How is It thai
th,re .,.. all Inc Idnd$ of flo, .. and Iilunas
behold; now dId they all get h~re1
TOe 'nower, ",f tou",.,!s Ih'l they h.ve been ae.teo by the Lord, But If )Iou are
not a bcllevor in God, thIngs .t< enonnously mote difficult. How did aU the.e
thing. get h...l Haw did Ufe get ,tarted and how did It come 00 ,ssume its
pr...nt multifarious lomt.l It seom, monumentaUy implausible to Ihlnk the
fonn. just popp.d Into ..alenco; th.1 SO., contrary to all OUT ""peri.nee. So how
dId II happen? Athel,m and Secularism Med an al'l$wor to IhU quesllon. And the
Grand t;:""I~tlon'ry Story gtves Ihe .nswer: ;omehow life .roo. from nonliving
matt.r by way of I1\1TOly natural ",ean, and In ,ceord wUh the fund'm.ntol L>W$
01 phy5!CS; Md <>n'" life slartea, aU !he v.st profusIon (;/ contemporary ptant and
,n!m.lllle arose trom thos, .arly an... lo<$ by w.y of cammon d.",en~ .drlven by
random vwtio~ and lI.tur.I.<lec~on. I sold
that we con't tlOm.tically
Id.ntiiy the d.l!v."nee:s of ...",;>n wlln Iho t>:.ching of cwrenl science becau.e
!he ! ching of currenl $C\ene k"ps changing. He.. we haw .nother ....son
for f.,lsling Ih,tld.nlllkalion" good de.l more IhM reason soes inlo thept.,, (f.ls"ch. theory." Ihe Grand Evolutionary Story. For the nonth.isl, evolu
tion I, the only gam. In town; it i. on .,sen!!.l
of any , ..."nably oomplole

w.

.,U"
,,.rt

SYMF051l.lio!

nonth.lstlc way of thinklng; hence the de""ll"n 10 it, Ihc su~..tion. thol. it
,houldn't be di$(:uss.:d Tn public, and the .... nom, the .h<ologl<al odIum w,lh
which dlssen, Is greeted.
B, The UkIIlfIt""" of !;Q/uliim

01 OOUl'S< Ihe faet that evoluUo" mnm II: l"''''ible 10 tit: a f<llillJod alheisl
doe.n'l ,how clther that the theory is,,'ltrue or that there j!;!J'1 powe-rful evldet1<e
ror I~ won then. how tihly ls It !hat this theory ~ truel Suppose we tlUnk aboul
the question from an e<I'IIcl!ly thelstL; and Christian prrsptcllve; but sUPF""'" we
reml"''''rUy set to one .!de the evidence, whaiwer. e~.ctly It Is, from eMly
Gen~. From this per'P<ctIve, how gQod Is the evidence for the l!leory of
...."lulion?
The f!rstlhlng to sec is that. nWllber of dijJmnll.,ge'scale cIai.ms IhlI under
this general rubrle of owlu.li<ln. Fir>t, the .. Is the dalm tlI.t the earth '" ""'Y old , '
perhaps ""me 4.5 b{IllQO years old, The Al1cimI &IrIh Thesis, as w< m.y ClIlI II.
Second, there 15 the claim tha, llie has pro~d no", relatively silJlp'le to -.
",laliv.ty complex /QImS 01 ll/", In th~ besJn.nlng th ..... was rela~v.;ly ol!nple
unIceUubt We, perhaps o/lhe sort represenli by bactoria and b~ green algioe.
or perhaps still slmpl.r unknown rol1l\i of lUe. (Allhaugh bade". il,.. ol!nple
coml',,,,d to ,Orne other IMIlg beTn!l"'. tluty .re In !act enonnau.ly <=pl."
ereawr ...) Th.en mo'" complex un!",llular !lIe, tMrt relatively .Imple multicellular lJfe such as .... g<>lr>S worms, coral, "",<I Jelly fish. tnt!n
Un", ompblbla.
then ['pill"" birds, "'~, and finilly,. as lit. ",lrnlnotian Qf !he whole
pl't>CI!ss, huxnan beinSl'i the Progress Th~, as we hum.ns may !jko t" call It O:-Uy
!Ish might have a dlf{orent view as t<> wh..... to whole proceSS culmlru!t.,.), Third, ,
there 1> the Common ~/ry T'htsis; that Ilk odglll4!<d.1 only OM p"'ce on eortj..
IIll subSe<j.tlWI Ule belng relate<! by descent 10 tho* orlgfnalllv!ng "".~e
~Ia.!m trot, es Srephen Gould puis II, there b a "tree of Evolutlon.ry ducenl
linking <Ill organlsm$ by ties of $eMalogy."u Aecorliing to the CQmmon A/Jal$hy
Th."ls, we art IileraUy ~ou,ln$ 01 .!lliving thlngs-hor..., oak lTe;:o and ""en
poison lvy-dlstant cousIns, no doubt, but ,till coo.'ns. (This is much .... si",. to
Imagine tor !;OlIte of ~s !han fur others.) Fourth, there is the daim Ih.t there is ..
(n~turallstk) p:p1lln>lian of \hls (\J;velopmenl 01 lif., from simp I. > <;1)mpJ form;;;
call thIs thesis Dm<:/nism, ~\l$. occordlng to the most popular and w.U-kMwn
,u/l&'st!ons. the eVtllulio"",), mech.nlsln would be ""lural ",Iedlan op ....lingo n
random goneUc mum!!on (due to copy ClTQr or ultra violet radiation or other
causes); a:>d !:hals sltn\LIr to D.rwi~s proposals, FlrulJy, there is the da.!m that
We Itself developed hom non-Uvlng matt., without My special c..... live activity 01
God b~t!WI by virtue of tht ordInary laws of physL;$ omd cl"'ml.s\ry: call thI.; the
Nalw'Rlisl~ Origins Thais, Thes. five theses .r;:, of ClJurse lmportanily dIU.,...n!
from ~aJ;h other. Tiley ..Ie I>lso logk.ny Indep;!ndent In pairs, ex<eptlor th. third
and {oW'll> \hows, tho ("uftn entails tne thIrd, In thot you call't sensibly P"'l">5"

n.n.

'''QUOI,d in !\IcJur.! Oawl:ios, TlI, ,elfish C<rlt {Oxford: Oxlord Un!v",,;ty h"" 191.), po I,

"D.!"""u", 0'1'""', pp, ll.6-'l7.

_L'''.v.o~ut!on .. ract and TOwry" In /1,"', T<tlh .a 110""', T"" (New Yor\{; Norton. 191O).

11,

.'

.
SYMPOSIUM

:1:0. ."

Thesis ~f Common Anr;.<stry, 1$ nol S<lmelh!ng about which th.,..,." be <enslbl.

dllieren", of opinion. Here Is rondom selection 01 claims of ocrt';nty on tho part
of the expe"" Evolutioll l.'l cemlll, soy. Prancbco /. Ayolo. a. <elI.ln "" "th.
Ioundness of the earth, the motions 0/ th. pl.nels/.nd Ihe molc<:ulartonstlruaon
of malter,"" Atcondlng to 5tep~tn j. Gould, .volution run eSl.blished la.;t. not.
mere theory; and no seNio!. p",",on who W03 .cqualnl.d wilh the ovid.n", could
demur." A(co.ding /0 Rlch.,d Oawkins, th. the,,!), 01 Nolution 15 .. ce;ta!nly
true .. lhot the rth goe> .round lh. sun. Thb ,omparison wilh Co?"mlcu.
'ppl>J'<fltly sugg.il,itself to ""'ny; accQndlng to PhU!p Spldh, "A ce.nlury .nd
q... rtet after tto. publfcallon of the Origin 01 Speclc'$, biologist, can say with
confidence th.t unlversi>l aenealogical relatedn<:$$ is. c(>n<luslon of $den> that Is
.. finn!y established as the feV<llu\fon of the <'<lIth about the .un."1' Michael Ruse,
trwnpels, ~r perhaps Jia<a:ms, t~O! ".volution III Fact, FACT, fACTI" It you
VenN.. 10 ,uflS"'" dClUbl$ a~\lI.voluHon, you j!re llkIIly \Q ~ caned ignorant or
.Iupid ()r worse. In fud U1.l.5lsn'l meroly liktly; you l\o .... o1roady bun ~ In
,,,,,,,,I revlew In tne Nw York TitTle., Richard O.wldns cla!"", that "It Ii abJ;olul\'ly
$til. to "'Y Ihat it YOll meet Qmoone who claims not to ben.veln ""olutlon, th.t
pcr;on I, ignor~nt, stupid or Irwn. (or wkke<l, bUll' d roth.r not consider IMI)."
(O.wklns Indulgently adds that "You are probably nol 'tupld, insane orwlcked.
and 4;nOf>ll" !:; not a rnrne"1
Well then, how should. sednu, Chri.<U.n ,hJnIr; ab"ullh. Common Anc<:stry
lind Oarwlnlan The? The. ilr$t ond most obvious thing, of oou~ Is IMt a
Chri.>ll.n holds thilt'lIl! pla!lt:;and animals, pll.t a. well .. present, have been
created by the lord. Now .uppose we set io one sid. what We take to b.th. !.>eol
unde"t.nding of early Gelles!:;. Th.n the ,...1 tl:ling
to is that God <auld MV'
/
accomplished IhI. <<<latIng In ~ thousand ditt ...,nt ways. It was eu~rtly within his
power to Cleato Ill. In a way ""rre.p<>ndlnS to tho Grand E'olutioMry s<enan,,' it
wa, within his pawer to "",are matter and energy, as In the Big Bang, to&,lher
with I.ws for lis behavl"r, In such. way that tn~ oU\(Qrne w~"ld be ~t, Ilk's
comIng Jr..1Q exlstence Ihre. or four billion
ago, and lhen the vorlou, higMf
furm> oflile, <Ulmlnatlng. ... we 1IkA; 10 think, In hurn.nldnd. This Is a "'mldels~c
vl.w of God and hb worldngs: he .tart. everything off and
bock to w.tcl> it
develop. (0,.. who held this view could also hold thilt Goo <eflslanUy ,"sl~ill$th"
world In existence-he,",e the vIew i.s only ~",ideis\lc..... nd even Ihat any given
~alUal transac&n In lb. univ ..,. ... qulres opedlic divine (Mournnl activliy.)l?
On the olher hand, <>1 CCUf>e, God (QuId have donelhipg!l very ditierently. H. hils

mo<ha1'llim or.n ""pla.,!ion lor evolution without .gre,lns 1M! ""olution has
'ndeed occulTed. Th. comb[n,!!on of .11 liv. of the,.
b what I h.....
t>..n "lUng Th. Grand 5voluUolUlry Story'; th. Common Ancestry Th.,is
tog<lher with Darwinism (remember, D'rwlni,m Isn't ih. view Ih.t the mecha
nl,m drivlllS evolution Is just what Darwin says lJ Is) i" what one most natur.!!y
thi!11<s of os tfle Theory ,,[ IOvoluUon.
So how sh,]l w. think 01 tn". five th l first, 1<1 ",e romlnd you once more
th,1 I 'm no ..port in thi' .rea. And sllcond, lei mo '"y that, a, T sec il, the
mplriCllI or $<i.nUnc .vtdenC lorth... five dlil,"nt cI.im~ dll[e", enormously
,,, qu.lity and qu.nllty. Thee. j, excellent ",,[d.n ior ..n ~nd.nt ....Ih: a whGl.
sori .. 01 InterJoddng diff,rent klnd, "I.vldence. >om. of which!> moffilall.d by
Howond van 1m In Th. Fourth D'y.Clven tbe strengtho! ihls ""Ide""", one would
;",ed pDwerful Md.nee on ih. oth" side-from Scrlptutll con$ide.ailons, ""y_
In ord .. ti> hold .ensibly Ihat the e.,t~ is young. Thero I. less ....Id.nce, but.1lI!
good tvld!n In the fossil reoord for Ihe Prog,.... Th.,I" Ihe claim that Ihere
b,cterl. berort fi,h, /ish b.lo", "pUles, '.ptll.. before mammals, and role.
b.furt men (or womb,t, before women, for th. l.m!niJ;i, in the crowd). The thlrd
""d fourth theses, the CQmmon Ancestry and O;uwini;>n Thtse, .... wh.t Is
eommonly and popUlarly id.nUned with evol~tlon; ! .lIall r.turn to them In a
mOfl1~nt. The /out1h t"esis, 0/ cou"., i, no mO,e lik.ly than the Hurd. ,l"". it
toclud .. lb. thiN and propose. a m""haniJ;m to .<count fOT II. Finally, there Is the
fifth thC$i3,th. N~t"r.liJ;tk Orlgln, Thes!s, the daim tll.t life oro.. by naturalistic
me.ns, ThIs S""m.; to m. '0 be lor the mo.t pan me", 'mlg,mt bluster; given our
present state or knowledge, I boli'" it is VQstly less prob.ble, 6n OUr present
,vidence, th, ... " it, dcni'1 D.rwln thought this dalm vory cha""y; dlsco".rles
sill'" Oarwin and in particular re;;en\ d!sooverlc, In molecul.,,- bIology make It
much 1<:>, likely th.n it w;s in Darwin's day.l ,.n'l summar!:.. the evld,nt< and
the diffiwltl.. h". "
~ow ,.tum to e~olution more narrowly slX.ned, the C~mmon Anc.stry
Thes" and 'he Duw!n,." thesis, COfll.mporary inidl~<lual orthodoxy I, som"".
~d by the 1979 cdlLion 01 the Nt:w E"~rlop,dr. BritAnnlDl, .c<ording to which
evolution t. ""cepled by all biologislnd natural s.I",Hon Is ,QCQgnlud ~s il~
ClW Ob!ecHon... have rom. hom lhdllogfca[ and, for a timo, irom POlliklll
sl:ilndpolnts" (Vol 7). It goe, on 10 add that "D.rwln did two thins" he .howed
tb.t ""oluUon Was in loCI contradicting Scriptomllegonds"f creation and t~.t lh
<aU,t, ~atural s~I.ct!ofl, was ,ulom.U", with no nlvm lor divine guIdance or
design. "'c"ondmg to most of lhe ."Pert., furthermore, ello!"tion, t.ken as the

tit.",

"'.r.

:r"'"

"Ill

~ ~

"l.t tn. ",(er you 10 the IoHowlng Pooh: Th, Myur'Y 'f Lifo's Origi"" by Cn,des Th... o.
Walt 6..&loy and R05t' O~n: Origl... by Robert Shapl,o.
TlurnwJy""",/;;<
I,,?-,IJ;,,; E"mdi.! /1" O.",,;"lan P",v,m. by )dhey $, Wl<~'n, S",," Ciu" Ii! In' OrigiH 'J
Ui~ :-nd C~~eti{ Ta,keo.vtr ~nd tne Mlnt!,!l OriginJ of Life. by fL. G. Cllm~$rrJtl1l ~t\d
O'W~ 'f Uft, by f""m'h 0Y$On; ....];0 the ,.I".h!
01 Mkhl D."ioh
II n.../y i. Cd,!. (Further pobll"tlon d,,, on io... boob, II d .. lrtd, 1> to ~
"'"nd In Iht bU,Uli"'phy~ Th. ,o'hor> 01 I~'
b""k b<;llev. it,.t Cod <WIied 11ft
'!'l.U , LIl. AU 11.." 0 I" ,

,,,,r.a.n,

"'/"'''"'

,f"pl,,,,

Ii",

"d

H"TheTh,ory 01 E"ol.~"", Rectnl Svcc..... Mid Chall.ng..," In """lv/1"" .nd C'''''/''n,..J.

m,n McMullln (Notre Dune: IJnlnr$lty 01 Noh. Om.P'.... 1995), p. 60.
I~Evolvtton i\$ Fact ~nd Thtory" in H(jJ's TedJr 1114 R(I,~'j Teo (NtW Yor],t: W. W. Norton
and C""'P'"y, 19i1Ol. pp. 2Sf,..Ss.
If,'''Sv(!htHQ"uy BI01Qgy j.fld tht Study of Human N"'ture/' prt'Sf'htOQ at ~ <;en!ou\tailon on
C.,moIQID'
ThtOloS)' 'I">r.$O4 by .h.l't<>by.,ri.n (I)SA) C~m<h In O'C, 1987.
''Th. "'un here ." "'mp~cal.d Mli ,.bU. 'nd I <.tn'1 8" 41i<1lh<m; (n,tud I .ho.ld lIkt
to r.comlll""d my ""lle.>gt.tt !>lln<! F"dd"",'. powerful pi",., "Me.I",,1 ""''''ttU>n/sth
.nd thf Cau Ag:.s.lnsl S.ond.uy ~UNt!on in N,tu~." In Dh-iff." 1IM,I J.,f" ......... l. .. ,!~ J

,.Q

].,

,."T"L _""'.

"

-"

;2).

"

created mailer .nd energy wlth Iheir tend,ndes 10 beh.ve in ~"rt.ln woy>-w'ys
'Um",.d up In tn. laws of physi~but perhaps th.", law, are nQI such that given
enough tim., Uf, would .ulom.H"Uy arise, Perh,p' he did sometblng dilleronl
,na.p.dalln the cr Uon of life. Perh.p. h. dId $OmeUslng dlffer.nland _peelal
in a.atlng the v.riOUs klnd. of .nimob and pl.nt>. Peth,p. h. did somelhlng
differ.nt and $p,.;i~lln In. no.Hon of human beIng'. Perh.ps in these c.ses hi.
act;"n with ""pect to wh.t he /I... crealed wos dilfererot from the ways in which
Il. ordin.rlly Ir !> ,hem,
How .h.ll we decide whiehe! these is Initially the mor.likolyl That i$ not ,n
."Y qoe,tlon. It I> ;mporlant In "'"ember, however, lh.t lhe LQrd I!;u; not merely
lell tne O>smo, It> d....lop according to an loill.1 croaUon ana .u; {nUW set 01
ph)"!,"ll.,.,. Accord[ng tQ Scriptu ..... h. ha, ofton Int"",ened in the worldng of
his <".mo . This isn', a good way of putting the matt.r (because of Its deistic
suggeslion,). It Is bell<r 10 s.y thai h. 11 .. often tr.oled wh.t he has cre.ted In
way dIfferent Irom the way 10 wokb h. Qrdin.rily tre'15 Ii. Ther. are mlr.cle:;
reported In Script"'., 10, ..ample; .nd, toweling above aU, there Is fue unlhlnk
.ble gift of ""lvatlon for humankind by way Gllh. Ufe, death. and reS'U1rect:ion 01
Jesu.s Chrisl, hIs :;on. Ac;ording t. Scripture, Cod h" oftcn I"'.tod wha, he h.s
m.de In a way dili,"nl from lhe woy In which he ord;narily rre~rs ;~ thero Is
th.re!Or<! no inUlal edge to the ide. th.t he would be trOre likely to M". crealed
Ilk in all Us varlety in the broadly delstk w.y. In lacl It looks to m. 451fth.,e \; an
initial probablllly on the oth~r sid.; it b a bit mor, pfobabt., before we look at the
saenefie .-vidence, tho! the lord ma,ed lIle alld some of il> form .....ln particular,
human 1l1......."p"d.Uy.
From this pe,-sptivc, then, how shall we ev.luate tit. evidence lor evolutionl Oospite the claim. of Ay.l" D.wkins, G01.Ild, Simpson' and tho other
expert;., r think the "idone. hero has to bo rated os .robi",""'" .nd InconclusIve.
Th. two hypoth.... to be compored ... (1) lhe claim Ib.l Goa hI>.> rno ..d us In
such. way that (al all of <ontcmpo,..)' plant. and animal, are rel.led by common
ancestry, .nd (b) !11. mtchani$m driving .vall..!lon Is nawral ..ledlon w~Tldns on
random genctic vari.tion ,nd (2) Ihe claim lh,t God crealed manldnd ~s well as
m,nyldnds of pl~nt. and animob "p.ralely .lId fip.dally, In such .. way th.ll tho
\~ ..!.; of com",on .n"",lry Is I.lse. Wnich of Ihose is th, more prob.ble, glv<n the
empirical evld.nce and the t.I1.i.!k ccnlexH 1 think the .,.;ond, the special ,,,,..tlon
the;;ls. is 5OUl<"Wh.1 more probable with re.p.ct to Ih. evidence (given theism)
than lh. firsL
The .. isn't lhe sp.c here. lor mot< than the m.resl ""nd waving with
respeot to m'1'llhalJing and ev.luating the evidenc., llulaordlng to Stephen ~
Gould. certainly. l.,dln& contemporary spoMsman,
. '
our ooflRdtnce th~~ e'Yolulion 'Occun.ed 1!enttT5 tlfOh three S~fl~T31 ",rgl..)mef'lr;.. FlQ:!, we

r..

haVe! ~hundAnl. d.rt ob;ervallon&l tYiCfnce- of l!VoJull~~ 1n .uHor\,. hom both. Iftfd "flO
bbo,.IOiy. Thl' (i'videoct!: r.anges fr<Jrn oounttt'$$ expetimeflts on I;.hU8t in nearly every.
thing abo)ut fruii ffie.~ s\lb!eettd til fTHficla! scfection In thl:! bbGrafory to t.he f}JILo~"
populollllN ,,( 6til<>h IMlh, .h.t b,oam, bl.ck wh," Indu.m.l _t darkened Iht I'et<
upon whT(.h. the- mo!~ }'~$l._ l4:

sMrOSIUM
$e<ond GOQld mentions hQmo14gies: "Why should. ral run, a bat fly,. porpoise
! ~d I type this ......y with .l:rU<lur"" built of the sam. oone;." h. asks,
~:n~:'. we .11 inherited tltem from a cOmmon an,tor1" Third, h. ",yo, the,.. t>

Ih. la ..U record1

t"
It. L.. d In the fQ$~1 reoord. Pt~tVed tt.lMltlans ilW not C)mmo~. "" boi
IrAOJ lIoM.ue Q efl H,l\lR
}u.
hAt btU r rf.JnsUil)l1.:&t ((Inn (QUId W~

Ih.y .... nol entirely wonting. I'<>r ~ ~~~~~I~.~ ,. .:." wllh II> .~Iike !<: It>
..ptc! 10 filld tnon Iho old<;:1 bum
""~ 'II'--'~:
l\umln u rfght 'f13nCf; wei a a"nlah::<lp.dty l.rgertfw\. i\i\y ilpc $. oHhewmll!"hodyslu Wt

D."....,.'

r-.... .

tuU l~ ~btc C'f!nt1~ter'$ ~1(!W' OtH'~' H Cod mJde ddt of lbc b..H-<Jtlu(\ h\lmo'in ,poed~

diii:ove:t<;\a In and~nt fO(b" why dJd h~ t:n:,te In .an Ul1h~bo te-mp<JlOI' ~u.~ ~
ro es.lh~ly mtirt mo:1e-m it".iil.lns. i.nc::rte1;mC crmW apaaty, ~dtla:d. faCt ~ tee!
~fr b(),y s!u1 Did h. 0'..\0 to .urnlc ...,Iudo. Jnd te;t our t.1I~ Ih,r<I>yl"

Hore we could add a 00"1'1. of other commonly cit~d kinds oI.videllC1r. (al
W~ .long with other animals display vestIglal nrgans (~p!,endiJ<, x<y>:. m_l""
that move rs and nose); It 1< susgested lh.t tlte bes, "'Planation ~ """,,Iullon. (b)
There" aUeged ooderu:e t0ll\ blod1emlstry: .ccordin~ 10 the auUtors of II r"p~.
la.r rollege textbool<. "All organIsms, .. employ DNA, and most U$e the citric /lad
;;yde, ;;ytochromes, and so forth It seem> inconceivable Iha! the blohemislry of
IMnS tMngs would be so I1lP\Uar II .\1 Ii", did nol dev<:lop !rom .. s\ns:le coQUnon
ancestral group."'"' There Is ."'" (e) Ih. fact tllal humon embf}'O$ durlng tIt.I,
dev,lopmen! <1lsplay 500\< of the clw.demnOl 01 ;impl~r forms of I!ft (fur
ex.mple, at a cerlw'1.$tase they ttlspllY gill-like .tructu,.,). FInally, (d) there l> the
fact ,hat ,OrtaJn p.'terns ot g<:<>sraphle>\ dfstribun"n-th'l.t~ ... are "",hlds and
.lUgators only In tlte Amerlcan SQutb and til Chino, for .j(,mplo-are $u"""Ptlbl~
!<> nlre t!Volutionary '''planatio n ,
.
$uppc.se w< brlefly consider Ihe Ia$t four tlr.>1. The orgumenls from vesll!l"lJ
organ" soognphlul distrlbu~on and .eml:>ryology ate sug~estiv", bUI 01 <:()ut'Se
nowhere ncar ';:<;incluslve, AS for the stll)ll.rlty In b{c>ch.m.~try <>1 all life, thls !.
r.asonably probably on the hypothesis of .pedal 0"\'011011, hence not much byway
01 e\'lclenCtl 1lSa.lns1 {~ hence not much by way.of evldc'!\ce for :"oluHon.
Turning to the ""ldenee Could develops, It 100 {, sugge,t,,,., but ru ~m
condusive; ""tne of H, furthermc", is seriously U.w~d. Fir>t. tho5< Io.mou.llriUsh
molh, dJdn', produce a new .ped..; there were betlt dark an~ light :not'" lIJ'Qu:'ICI
before the dark ane. ooming !<> pn!dOln;note whon the mdwmal revolution
depo,{ted layer of sool on tr<e5, m~l<ing I~e l!g/11 moth> m",. visible. to
pred.lor;. MaN broadly, while th.,,, Is wid ~.menl th,t there I, such. t~g
as mkroevolutlon, the quesrt"" I, whether we cm extrapol.te to m.~o!"licn.
with the claIm that e"ough mlcroevolutlon con account for the ell<lrll\O\lO cltff..enees between. say. bael~rl~ and human belnS" There is some experlc'l1tl.lr.:ason

~.

_---~--__--------------------------------~C~hn~'<~II~.~n~S~'n~.~I.~'~.~R~.V~l~<~~'

SYMPOSIUM

seem, '" be HOrl of .n~lop~ 0( limited "ariohilily.urround.

ing a sped", and tl' nN' "Ialive Artilkl.! s.lecli(ln can produc.: ..v<ral dIfferrnt klnd' of fruil fli,s and several dille.,ml kind, of doS<' ""I, .Iarting wUh fruit
flies, wh,l it produce, i. only mort iTuit flies, A. pl~nl' or animal. are bred In
cenaIn d[mHon} a $Or!: ot barner ls l!n.counh!teai runl1t"T ::setfcrjVc. br~ed{ng brings
aboUI 'Itrillty qr a reversion 10 "",II" jorm. Partlsans of evolution sugse$l. Ih.l,
in nature. genetk mutation of one 'orl or anolh.r c.n .ppropmt.ly augment In.
,,,,,ervoir of genetic varioti"". That II con do '0 ,,,fftdenlly, hOwe""r, Is IIOI
knoWTI; .r.d the .,se,tior. th't il docs h. ,erl of rl"l.mai~ .pi~yde .ttadllng to

'. )4 .:" .' 10 Ihink no!; Ine"

.... '..

lb, lh>ry.

Next, thore Is th. argument f,em the fossil record: hUI .. Gould hirn ..11
point:; "u~ tile fonil r<cord .how, very fow ,ron$illonal forms. "The """eme
rority of t,an5ition.l form. in th' fossil record;' h .. ys., "persist, AS Ihe trade
5"'1 of paleontology, The evolUtionary If'" Ihat adom our 'extbooKs hove dat.
only al lh, til" and nod", of tbeir branch.s; Ih~ resl Is Inierenco, however
r >on.blt, not th ~Idence oIl4$sil>."l' Nearly all speci.. appear for the fir.1
limo in th. fossil r<><lQro fully lonnod, wilhout Ih. '1.st chain, of tntermed!..,)'
fOrm5 evolul[on would ,uSS..l. Gradu.!!.!;e evolutionl,l, d.im that the fu>s!l
rord is woefully incomptete. Gould. Eldredg. and others h...... dtlfenmt
respon"" 10 Ihls difficult)': punctuated equllibriumlsm, ~c.;o,dlng 'Q whl,h..IQng
periods of e...eluti"na,), ,wi, .'" interrupted by ,elatlvely brief p.rlods-oL~ry
rapid evolution. This re'pc>n help, the thoory a"'"mmod,,!e .orne 'of thc fo.,n
clat., but.1 the ""I of .no,her Ptolemaic epJ.:yde,>.l And sHU more epicycle .,...
",qulted to aeroUnl for puzu1ng dllcooetl", in moleC1Jl.r biology during the I.. t
twenty yea..,'" And as lor tbe .rgument /rom homologies, thi. too i. ,uS'S t! ...e,
bul 1M frem di$\\'e, Phi, th<re "" of course mMy exampl.. of .rchit..:lural
01 Ihe
>lmil.lily that are >tOt .1lributed 10 Common .n~trY, as in the
T"moni" walland the EUfope.n wolf; the aMtomicol ,,"vons are by no mean;
conclu,i". proof 01 common onces'!)'. And secondly, God created severol differ.
ent Idnos 01 animals; what would prevont him from using .!mUar .t""tures?
But perhaps Ihe mosl important dimeu!t)' 11.5 in a slightly different direction,
ConsIder the mM1mallan eye: 0 mp,.... eJous and highly complex in$lt\lm.n~

<a,.

~'J1u,

"'

P"""',

Th,,,,. (;-:.'" Yo,k: 1911<l), p, 181, Accardins to <;'0',,< G'ylo.d Slmpl<)n (t95:
'Neidy ~nG\~.gQrt~ :lOOVt the Ie:'II't'I(J! t:'lflliHl!.' ippta, in ih~ rt("oro s.uddenly lind ,are Mt
l~,d up to by known, gradual. ("mpltJt[y o;;ntinwous tnnsHianal StqUl..!1!c"s:'
t:iA114 \!Vt-Cl so It htlps much less th4.01 Yo;lU rt'Iignl thInk. 11 dl)e~ offer i-n !!xpT;ilnaUon of the
,;;bs~ncf! 'Oi M~l !Imn$- tnlt;rtnedf~te" wHh rt':6pt"Cf 10 c:losdy f~14tt!d or <ldJo.J~ing !jpeclt$~ the
Jul ?n}We:m, thougJ1.1s whn., Simpson rfitn 10 In: the 'qUCUt 1n tht PN\I!OUS foolnGtt~ til!
faC1 t~:n 1\eilrly an ~ll.:goaie$ n.'bove the leVi:'1 of hrni1its .ppe,ar in tn~ record suddenty,
~tho'Ut tbt gradual ~"d c,Q.nHnuQu~ StqtltfiCF;i we should ~Xptrl. P'UnCltulted ~lJUibdum~
1$!1l dltt:S nothIng k1 e:.:pllln I:he Marly romplt"tt abStnce,.ln the fo~s:il fC17oro of in~:rmtdf. .
aft'S ~hvecn s,uch majot dflll.sfon3 l!:$o~ \Cly, ~plUtS .lnd bIrds. I)r fi~h and re-p~ or r~pillCi
iond m:Hl\f1'Ials.
bHf'r~ ~~ Mfchul Dt-nton, Ewt;JliO)f: A Th~ry ilt C;,1$I' (LondQ[); B4.lm!!':lllaoks) 198.5}~
,h'pl<rl:l.

<

resembling. tele=pe oftn. !>lgh~t quality, with a lens, on odlU!;lable focu.,,, ;).5,
v.rlable diaphragm lor coAb'<)Ulng th~ amount of "gllt. and optical co~ns fo!
sph.rI<:a1 and dIromatic .bem>!lon. An~ h.... Is the pro\>l,m, how d"", the ten.,
lor ~ple, get develQPe<! by Ine propo~d me.ns-".. dom &'Inetlc vwt\on
and natu",t Jetoetlan-whe" ot Ihe .. me lime thOle has 10 be d.""lol'ment of the
opHe n.""e, the rcl.vlIni mus<:los, th~ r,tlru>, the lvds and <one., and m.ny olh..
delicate lind cQml'llC<lled $ln1ctur..,.1t of wWch h."e tQ b. adjusted to (ach oth"
,In such .. way thol th~y can work to!;"!h,,,,? Ind.lId, wh'l i$ Involvlld l$n'I, of
i;oU~',IU$t tho eye; II i. tho whole vl;",,1 syslem,ln~l~dlng th' ... I,v.,,' port, 01
the braIn. Many dllf ."nl O'SOl1S and suborgano have 10 be doVelope<l kiS.th<:r,
""d "I. hud 10 envlsagl! a .e:rles of mUlotion. which b such tb.1 each mem1:>er of
the 5On.. has .dap~v. volu., b al$O a step on the way 10 the eye, and i. such th~t
the last memberls an anhnal with .lIch an eye,
W. Clll\ consider the problefI\ bll mG... ib>ir.ctly, Think of sort of spa"', in
which the potn\$ lire wgank k1rm. (pos;ible org.ml!;m:;) and In whit!; nci'gbborIns /01'11\$ Me $<I related Ih:!t one could rove originated from Ih. other with some
minlmum prob.bllUyby WAy of random gi!nmc D\utatlofl.lmaglne .tartlntwlth"i1
population 01 /IJ\ln\m without eyes, .r.d trace thwug~ the space In question all I
I"c p"ths lI'a! le.d. hom thls form ki fonns Wtth orye'l. The <hlef problem 15 !hal the
v.. t m.rority of Ihese path. can lain Ions s!!<lions wIth .djacenl poinl. such that
lh~re would b'e no adoptive advantage In going from one pOint to tne """I. 'i<' th.t
on DarwInian ass""'pt!ons. Mne of them ",uld be the poth in fact \0
How
could tho eye have evolved In tIW; way, S(l th.1 each point on it> path through that
'p.ce would bdllpdve and a ~I'p on the way to the <yel (l'<rh'p5 it Is possible
Ih31 $<)rne 01 liie....ctlon.; could be lraversed by woy 01 Slops ,hot ,..no not
adaptive and were Ib:ed by sene~t<h:1lt; bul the probability of tho j>Opuhltlon'$
ttt",.ing such ,trel""" will be mueh less than that 0111. =.,(ng a stmihr s~tch
wiler< ll>.tuzal seloctlon b opemdV1!.) Darwin hi.rn$eli wrote, "To suppose thal the
rye, wJth aU Its Wmlt.ble ,ontrivan,..... "rowd havo been Ionn.,) by natu.r.1
",I.cllon $'.ms absurd In the hlghe.1 degr..:' "When J Ihin):; of !h. eye. 1
shudder" he .'lid (3-4), And the {omplexHy "I the eye Is enormously g".ter than
wo; known in Darwin's tilf
W. are never, of course, giv.n the/Uluat"plaNl1on of the evolution (;1 the
ey., tne aCllUll.volutlonAry l>lstory oitii, eyo (or brain Or h.nd Or whatevcr), That
would t.ke the form, In that orlginal populotiQIl of ey ..l;:$' til. fanns, genes A,h.
mutated (due to som~ perhaps ur.'p.elli.d "U!Ie). le.dlng t<l 'orne sl"'dun) AAd
hone!ional change whlch Wa> ad.ptively benelid"J; the be."" of A,-A. 11."" had
." advantage Ol'Id <:am~ to domiNtethe popul>tlon. Then senes lI,-B, mutated in
~n individual or two, and the .am. thIng h'ippened agatn; then gen. C,-C,.. OIIC.
Nor are we
given any po ..!bUiI!.. 01 these wrts.
rouldn', be. sinCl:. for
most ge".., w< don't know enough about Iheir lunctions.) W reinstead iJ:<lat.d
ro bro.d bru.h scenarios .t tbe macro'l(OOpk lev.I, p.rhaps "'PHI grad"ally
dev.loped I.:.thc"" &.rid wings. and wwnbJoWe<!nes,$, and lhr othorl.ature< ot
bird., We." given poulble l!"I'Qlotlcmary Msl(l!ies. not or the detailed g<:netk $Ott

""tn

c:ao

)'
"

. -.
~

.. ....
SYMPOSIUM

-26

mentionod .bove, but broad m.rro;coplc scen.rio.: wh.t Gould calb "JU,I'SO
storic.!!.'"
And the .... 1 preblem i, thai we don', know how to ev.Iu.te th.s \lgS"-

w.

1100. To know how to do !!till (in lb. eft. . 01 the eye, say),
should have to start
wltb :;ern. p<>pul.Uon of .nlm.1s Withoul eye.: and then we should Mv. to know
Ih. rat 1 which mul.tlon, eccur tor th.1 population; the proporllOfi 01 Ihose
mutations Ih.t.", on one of Iho,,' path:< Ihrough th.t 'P'" to Ih. <oncllilon 01
h3V\ns. eyes; the proportion of thou that ~re iidaptfve, and, at rach $t8gl.!J given the
""it of enwonm,nt enjoyed by theOIll.nlsm. al th., stog., the ral. al which such
adoptive modifiC<lticns would bave 'pread Ihrough til. popul.llon in question.
Th.n w,'cl h.ve 10 comp'''' aur rc.~lts with the lime availabl. to .valuale the
probabllity 0/ the suggestion in qUe>tion, But w< don" know what theso ratos and
propomons are, No doubt we ,-,,"', know wh.t tney are, s1"en the ;carcity of
operable Hm...maon!n..; sHIL the laot Is We don't MOW them. And hen .. we don't
!tany know whoth., evolution 13 $0 much.., biologically passiM", mayoethe", I,
!:o path through Ih.1 'pace, It Is <pisttmiG2l1y possiblelhot .".,Jurion h", occurnd:
tho! I>, Wi! don't know thai it luI'n't fur;ill we know, it h.., llui It do"",', fellow
that 'I \; I'>iolog/cll!ly p"",lbk. (Whether every e"en ...umber Is the .um of two
pril"" \$ on cp .... ques\!on; heru:. il is op"temi"lIy po&siblo thot every ""en
n"",borls the sum of two prime" and .1'0 oplsteml<ally po.slble th.1 SOil'" even
numbo" ar. not the 'urn ollwo primes; but one or th. ether of Iho," .pls"'mk
pOs;ibUltie. I, in 1.<1 melh<",.tkolly impor.slble,) Assuming th.i II iJ'blologlnUy
po.slble, furtllmnor., w. don't know Ihat It I, nol prohIbitively Improbable (In
tb. ,l.'lil,tiC.11 ,cnse), giv.n In. lime .vail.ble, !lut Ihen (glven the Cbri.H.n fallh
and le.villg 1<> one sic. our .~,!uatlon of the evld,n,. fr"m rly Genes!.) Ih.
right attitude lowards Ih. claim of "niv~,sal <ommon descenlls, llnink, one of"
c.rlaln inter !<d but wary ,kopticl.m, It is pru:sibl~ (cpj,tem!coUy possible) Ih.1
Ihis ls how tbing> h'pp,ned; God <auld h.v, don. II tnal way; bul Ihe .,!denee Is
ambiguous. Tbal II I, "",,/bit is deal; th'l il napp'flcd i> doubtlul; Ihat It Is
.!!.owever, b: ridirulcllS.
Bul then whal .bout all those cyuberaA! cries 01 cert.inly from Gould, Ayala,
Dawklns, Simpson and th. othe, "perls? What,bou! those daims that evolution,
un!v......! common ancesay, I, a ""kribb.d rl.inly, 10 be ~ompared with Ihe
facf Ih.~ the earth Ii round .nd goes ~round (he $un'l Whal We h.ve here is at best
\
tnotmous .""u.,.tion. !lut Ihen wh,1 ,<count, lor Ihe i.ctlMI th"s. d.ims are
made by ,uch intelligent lum!n.rl.. as the .bovd Thel'l' are.1 '~asllwo reasMs.
Fhsl, the... is the cultural and religiOUs. the mylhic funellon 01 tbe doctrlne;
.;; ivolulion help. make it possible to b. an inlellC<tUelly fulfllled atheist From a
",to,allstic polnl of View, this is the onJy answer in s!gbt to the qu",tlon "How
did It all happen? How did .n Ih! m.,lng profuslon of lifo set h.r<r' From 0
nonthci.!!e point 01 view, lhe evolutionary nypothe5is Is tll< ~nly some In 10WI\.
A(eording to the th"i. of unlvers.1 ""mmon d.scoot. ur" arOSe in JUS! on. plilce:
then Iherr was (cn't."t developmenl by way 01 evolutlonary meth.ohms /rom
t~.t ~~ t~;nt rr_~t, t?l$ :es~lting 10 t~. rJ~fu'iQn of Iii. w. presently !Itt, Ol)

mI.,,,,

other; on Ih.1 ~ugg.. tion tho", would be many dif('ffi"lt s<:neti< tre.., tit. enature, .doming one of tlteseln!6 genetically unrelo"'d to those on .nother. Pn>rn
nontheistic pmp.ctive, Ih" firsl hypolhesls will b<l by far the mote prohWle, If
only bee.we of tho extraordinary difficulty in .,.In& how life could an... "wn
on<:e by.my ordinary "",clunlsm, whiJ:h operat. today. ThQtit should aM many
dlnerent times and at dift.renll"".!, of ''''''ple"lty In thl$ w'y, I. quite lru;red!ble.
tTOm iii naturalIst penptcUve/ furthcrmoTe, many of ~h4 argumen.f::i for O'Votu
don .",.;nuel! mor~ pownful th.n lrom a Ibeist\< perspectiVE. (Fore""mpl.,giu.<n
thai life """.. naturallslleilly,lt E$ Indeecl slgn!iiQnt tn~t .lIm. employ, ili.,..me
..!!i.netic (ode,) So from ""Iur.lisa", nonlhetsii< perspective the .-votud....ry
hypo!hesls will be vastly more probable tn.n .Jtem.live;. Many Ie. d.", In the
ReJd of evo(ullol\.ry 1>b>Jogi$ts, Or COMe, .r-. natu!l!lisls-Gould, Oawkins, ....d
Storbbln.l, for """tnple; and according to William Provine, ",'eIJ' lew tl"lJly .-cUgious
eooluUonary biologists rell1Al~, Mo.1 .re ath.ls~, .nd' many how he<ln drlv.n
there by their und,,,,t.lnd!ng o( the evo1uJlonary pro<:ess and olh.". scien",,''''' It
Provine Is rlght or lICarly right, '{ be.:QD\0$ easier to ... why We hw- thb
ln$l$t.mco that the evo.lullon.uy hypath1s I" c<.rteln. It Is al,o sy to re. how Ih\s
.t!ltudxlls PiU'OO
to gradu.te students, and, Indd, how ."'.!,!irlg the 'liew
that evol"U<>.n E$ ~rtoln b 1t..1! .daptlv, for Ille In graduate sthool.nd ~c:.>domla
gen",.Uy.
Th~ \:; a second and r.lared ci'C\lm:i!anco at work here. We are sometimes
\old that mtural.>denCl1is )!Il/Ur4! science, So mit!; h.ro to obj..:!: bUI now shoU
we t.>~ th. leon '''''tural' hcrel It could me.n that Mtural sdence i> !!dent<
dIWoted 10 Ih. srudy uf ".rure. F.ir enc>ugh. But It Is .Jw taken 10 mean th,t
tUitural .>dent. Involve m.lMd.l~Eiatt lWlu11.11i.s., or PrQvlsio","' .thelsm:%> ~Q
hypothesis a<;alrdlng to whIch G"d fi don. this or that can qualify as 5Citntific
hypoth.sl.. It would he interesllng look into Ihls mall"" is til .... ",011.1' lilly
compelllng or _'en decent r.lUon Jor thus restrlding {)11r study 01 naturel llut
.uppose we !tel\.lcBIIy eon""d., lor the m=ont, th.1 !\lltural selena doesn't or
shouldn't lnvolw hypotheses ....nti:lUy fnv<>lvlng God, Suppose we re:otrlct our
.xplanatory J!\2>torWs It; the aroln.ry low, 01 phy.k. and cl,.mi.try; ,uPr<"'" we
reject dlv1ne .pedol crwIon OJ: olher hypothos<:! .boul God .s sckrllir", hypotheSois. Perhap.lnde.o lru.lord has engoged In spedol cre<;Hon, $.(l WO say, bul that
~. ha, (if h. has) is not somelhing wjth whlen n.tural science con d l. So fro'.'
natural sd."ce goes, therefore, an a",tpl.bl. hypothesi, lllUst ,ppeal only ro the
l.ws that govern the ()rdlruuy, dayto-day werking 01 tho .;0,",,0$, A, ...tural
$dentists we must .;chew Ihe '\!pernillurol.-ilthough, of course, we don't lJ\ew!
for a mom,nt 10 embrace naturalism,
Well, S\!Ppo$e We adopt this .lIitude. rhen perhap:; it locks as II by Ia.r th.
m",1 probable 01 .ill the properly set.ntili. nypath.... Is th.t of evolution by

"h

'0

"'Op. elf.. ", 28,

""'Sci.n Il'IU$1 he provbolo",Uy .th"I<t!c Qr .._ k> he IlWt" llasn Whlll.y "O.rwln',
Pt.u 41 Ute liW-l)ty of T'holJptt" In M. Banton.. N_ [':kl'tr.lrwic ......... ..,! ... ~ f:l .J._ .1 r_"'.'
J_~

_ .....

.-,

SYMPOSIUM

:28,

.~QrM10n an,.;!,y' it is hard to toink of any other teol pos'ilbHity. The only
.lternativos, opparently, would be crea!u,"" popping into .xisten," lutly formed;
nd th.1 ;$ whQlly cnnirary to our .<per1<!nce, Of o!llhe sdontiae.lly """pl.bl.
explanatory hypo!"""," thorel""', evolution oms by
the mo.! probable. Bu!
iI !hls nypoth""", is o,.!ly more prob,ble 'ho. any of it. ,Ivals, then II
b.

f.,

mu,t

urtajn. or nrarJy $,0.

Bu, to rcason thi, way i'lo fa!ll"tQ~oniu,ion compound..l.ln th. fl"lt place.
we
jus, givcn that cne ot ,noth.r d those hypoth.~s I:; In faCI correcL
Gr.nll, if we knew that One or anoiher of Iho,,", scienllficaUy .,ptabl. hypolh.
.ses
In I.a(o..... d, then p,rIlaps thl' on. would be cottain; but of <au"'. we
don't krowlh.t. On. re,1 pOSiibility is Ihat wc don'l h.ve. very good Ide. howl!
011 h.pp.ned. jus!
w. may nol ho"" a very good !d..... 16 wit.! terrorisl
org.nlutlon h.~ p'lJ"lral',d particular bombing. And s<""ndly, t~i$ ....sonlng
involves a >o/u,!on belween 110. da!m th.1 of .11 of tno5esc(,t,li/icalIy .(ceplable
hypOlh",.s, Ih.t of <"mmon an"",tl)'l< by far the mo,t plausible, with tho V>l>lly
more conl.nno", daim 110,,1 of .J! th, .c<eplable hypoth.s.s wJw.1@;T (now pl.c"
ing no t ..trictions on lheir kind) thl' hypolhesl' i. by lor the m<lSt probable.
Christla"" In particul.r oughl 10 b live to the v.S! ,Hr'er'n,. between
dalmS; confounding th.m I~.ds to nothing but confusion.
From a Christian pen;pe<;tlve, H I, dubio"" with ,esptct to Ollr present
.videnco, that tho Common An""Ury Th.,is Is true. No doubt lher. II"" been
much by w.y of rnkroevolulion' RIdley'S gulb are an interesting and dr.m.lic
in point. But it l'n'l particularly likely, given the Christian faith and tll~
biologica' .oldenee, th.1 Cod <le.t.d all the fll>r. and fauna by way of some
, mech.nism m\lOlvlng common 'n""try. My maIn PQlnl, however, i. thot Ayala,
Gould, Slm!J'{\n, Stebbins .nd t~eir coterie ore wrtdly mlsj.ktn In claIming that
the Grand Evolutionary HYPOlh.,j, is cerIai And nenee tfle sourc. of thls claim
h.. to "" look.d lor alsewhere tho" in i.obersdentlA< evld.nc.
So II <cu!d b. (hat the best sci.nUnc hypOlhilSis was '\'olutlon by common
d.""ent_L . , of ,Il the ypoihe,e, that conform to methodological naturalism, It
is the l>.. L Bul 01 <ou,... what We "oily want to know is nol whIch hypolhesls i.
the b",! from SOme artilidally adopted standpolnt of Mtur.l!sm, but what Iha best
hypoth .. i. I, overall. We ,"'a"t to kMw whOi the Pe.1 hypothesi, i., n"t which of
some Umiied dass Is b.. l-partlrularly If ih. do.ss In q\lestion spedfically
dudes wh~! we hold to b. !he bask truth of the moUe,. [t could be th.t the best
m.nllfk hypothesis (ag.in sllppo,lng th,t s.denUlk hypothesis m\lst b. nat\!.
ralU!( In the above .ensel 130" even a strong romp~i!t6r In 1M! derby.
]udsm. nts here, of course, may differ widely b.tween b.lieve", in God and
nonbell", .... tn God. What forth. Iorm.r Is ill best. methodolOgical "".trt.llol1 I.
10, th. I.lter the sober metophy.iallrul~; her naturalism Is not morely provIsional and m~tho4Qlogi~,I, but, as !he sees it, ~~l!l&d Ima fundamental aut believers
in God can st. tho maue, differently" The b.llevo< In God, unllk, her naturalistic
coun,erpart, Is free \0 look allh. evlden.e for lhe Grand Evolutionary Scheme,
and follow it wh~re It leads, rejecting Ih.! ""he.ne Ii the evidence i. In.ulflclenl.
ShE hIS nt~dom not av.lI,bie 10 the n,turaUsi. The I.tter .ccepts the Gr.nd

.,,,,,'t
W""

.5

Ine.;;.

"5'

Evoludonary Scheme b~c.use from a natur.UsIIc poInt of view 1~ls ",heme Is Ih.
only vl.lbl. Oj1swer to tho quesHon w]",1 is the expL",.liorl of lire p,....'" ofqll Iw
,"a",~t~Y$ly ",.lIiJa,jous /orm3 of liJc/ Th. Chrlsll.n., em the oth hand, kr<>w' thai
c,e~tl()n I, the l,ord's; and lihe I",'t bUnl:ered by a priorI dogma. os to how tho
Lord must have .tcompl!shcd II. Pechap< It
by br""dly eVQlutioMty mns,
but then .ga!n perhaps not. Al the mom.nt, 'pemap. nor seem, th. ~r
ansWer.
R4!!unUIlB to methodologlal naturofu;Jl1, If indeed na(ur.l 3dence Is eoson 1
Hally {eslrktEd 11'1 lids woy, iI.uch restrl,tlon Is part <>{ Ihe ,"cry essence of
,denc~, then wh.t We need hero, of COUr$<, is not natural ><:I<,"O!, but. b_dn
I:ru!ulry that can Include a/l !hilt we know, Ind1Jdins the truths Il>.l Cod h3,
ereoted IU. on earth and ",uld have dOM it In TMnY dUf.... nt woys. "UllMtural,
Sdencc," "CrNtlon Sciene"," '''Theistlc Sdence"-allit wh;n you will: wn.it we
nd when we won! know how 10 til",).: about the origin and develop"'''''! o[
rontempora.ry fife 1$ ",halls mo.l plausrt>le nom l Christian point (Ji view. What
we need Is sclentillc account of lire (hallsn't re.trlcted by tha, mel~O<Iologlcal

w",

to

nlltur.tlim.

Co What Sltould Chris/Ian lnl<llledllals Tdlth. MI of Us;

AltemaHveiy, how YIn Christla,. Inl.ned1lals-scienlists, phllos<>phet'$, IIIstorI.ns, mer.!), .nd art altlcs, Chwtt..n thfnkers 01 every sOl'l--how ,an th ey best
.,,,,,.the Chrlstllln commWll.ty tn an area like 1hiJ? How (an (h,>,-""d >inC>! "'e
are they, how .::an w~ ~. Ih. Cbrutlon Olllllllunity. the Reformed co",
munl/y of which we a!'l! port. and, mOfe Importantly, the broad.r sener1l1
Chrlstian cOll\ll\unltyi One' thillS OIlr <xporl5 CIU\ do for us Is holp US avoid
rejecting ,volllilon IlXI'stupld roasoru. The euly literature 01 ereatiemScic",,". so
call.d, Is ultmd with argum<mls of that emfnet1t1y re!e<:Iable sorL Here IHUch an
argument. Considering tho ra~ of human pOpul.atlOIl growth over !h. I.st ~
cenlurles, the a"thor point, oot t~'1 ''I'en on moot cons.rvative e.orru>w the
human populallon of the earth doubl .. of leut ",very 1000 yo ...,;, Then II, .,.
e\loIuHonlsts claim, tho first humans existed at leasl a million yo.,.. ago. by now
the hu~n populoUon would hay. doubl.d 1000 times. n S<iemS hard to "'. how
there could have been fower Ihan two orlglnal human b<!!ngs, $0 at tb.I rate, by
the lnexC>I'ahle law. of I1\atht1l\atlcs, afte, only 60,000
or $/), thm would
have betn ><lm.ethlng like 36 qublWlion peoplo, and by now there w"uld have to
be Z'<oJ human belngJ. 2'''''' Ls. ia:rll" number, Ills more than 1(1'00,1 with 300
~=
II) if the.... wue tIl,t many of Wi the whole universe would have to ""
packed selid "ith peopl SInce clearly It 1sn'1, l1umon beings coutdn't have
.xl>lcd for "" long 'IS a nillllon years: $0 th. evolutlonlst< ~I. wmng. 'lOr" Is'dearly
a lousy a'1l"",ent; lle.v. 0$ hpmework Ih~ problem o( saying just whotre it fiOO"
wrong. There are milJlY olher bad ",gum.nts against evoluHon floating ,round,
and It Is worth QW: while fo l.1Im ,hat Ihe... arguments are ina."d bod, W.
shouldn't rtfecl ront<tmporary science unl"". we have to, and we shcutdn'l rell
it for the wrong ",.son1. It Is. gMd thing for our ","""lists to !"lInt out """'. of
tho.e wrong ,..son.,

Y.''''

.It.,

"

"I

..

30

OuuUJn Scholar.

lttvlc~

But I'd like 10 sUI>S,'<t, wilh all the dilfid.n", I on muster, tn'!! Ihe .. I.
;omethtng bell" tQ do h<T,-a,.t any ,ai, ,om,thing th'l ,"auld be don. ill
.ddltlon tQ thl,. And the e>,.nce 01 Ihe m>1t" L; fAirly "mple. despite the
daunting compl<xity thatarues when We d';<.nd to the nittygritty level where
the ..,1 work hos 10 b, don . The I1r>I thing 10 Set. os I said before, is Ih.r
Christianity is ind.,d eng.ged in a <O"/lid, b.llle, The .. Is Indeed a battle
belwe~n Ih. Chri"lan Ctlmmunity .nd the fo""",,[ unbelief. This contest Qr baUle .
"II'" in m.ny .re.. of conlempor"'}' cultucc-lh. ",urts, In Ihe ~I1.d media
and 'helik.,-but p.,hap. mo't particul.dy ill .cad.ml. And the ,.",nd Ihing to

see is that impOrtanl ""lrur.1 fo""", such "" .a.nee aro nol neutral with fe'ped to
this ",nlliel-though of ct)"",. tert'!n pam of oonl<mp<>ra.ry 5ciAon .nd rrwnY
CQnlOtl:\porary .aentbt. migh! vcry well bo, It i. of tI\. !irot importance Ih,! we
diSl:ern In d.bil ju.! how contemporory .Id<ne<-,nd ,,,ntemporary phU"sophy,
h{:;!ory. UI.",ry crlUolsm and $() on-islllvolv.d in the struggle. TiUs Is a (ampli t.d, m.ny.ilded mall.., it vari from discipUne to disdplJn., and from ...... to
.re. wilhin given di.al'linc. Or,. 01 our ,hlel t4sks, th",dore. mut be th.t of
cul"'",1 crilldsm, W. mu,1 Irst tlw spirits, not automatically wd"'m, the", In
bfcau.s. "j their !';"I'I .eademic pre,tige, Academic prestIge. wide. oven ne.lrly
un.nimolU .ccep""" !n .<ad,,,,i., cled"ration, of <e""mty by important
.aentist>-none 01 th,,,,.i$ a [Ill.ranle.thal what is prop<>sed 1$ true, Or. genuine
deliveranc, of rea"'n, or plausible from a theistic poinl of view. Indeed, none Ls"
guar.nle, that what i, prap<>5ed is nQt ~n!mated by a 'piIit wholly antithetical to
Christi,oity, We mUSI dis<:ern Ihe relig;ous .nd ideological mnnedions; we carit
.utom~~cally take Ih. word 01 Ihe expert" beau their word tnlijht 1>. dead
"ronS from a Ch n,u..n ,Ian dpoi nt.
Finally, In .11 the ~r." (>f a(ldemic end.avor. We Ch.ristiaos must think about
'the matter at hand Irom a Christian p<f'pectlvc; w< need Th"is~c SOe,,,. r"",
hal" th, dlsdplin' in que;ti'on. as ordinarily l'r>cticd, Involves. melhod()logloal
ntituraHsrn; if so, then what W~ n~df finally. is not ilnS;"'''ers to our qu~Uons from
thol pel$l'l'<tive, valu.!>le in ,,,rnt way' as it may be. Whal we reaDy need ate
'nsw."" to our ,\u<>llon. from I~,e persp,;tive 01 .11 thai
Kn()w-whal w
know about God, .nd what w~ ~()W by faith, by way 01 revelanon. as well as
what We know in other w.y. In many a,ea., thto m<>n$ Ih., Ch,hti,n$ mu5t
,"Work., rethink the are. io question from
perspective. Thi. Ide. may b.
.ho<!cing, but It I. oot nt..y. Refotll'cd Chrlstlaru; n...c Ions reo:>gni:ted ,h.1 .oe",'
and schol.rshlp ore by no "' ..n. religiously n<"tr.l. In a wa" Ihi:; i:; our dlson,'
liv. th... d in the t.pestry of Chri,tianlty, our inslrument in lhe bTea' symphony
of Chri>tianlty. Tl)is reeogtliUo" undorlay the .51.bUshmen! of tlw Free Unlve"l!y
of Amswrd.m In 1880; il.lso tmder].y lhe 1:$t.hll>hmcnl 01 Calvin College, Our
lo,ebe"", recollnized the hud for lh. sort of work .nd Inquiry I've been mcnl1.hV
Ing, .nd tried to do something .bout it. Wh.t w< need from OUr ...ienllsls and
other academics, IIt.o, 1$ both cultural oitid5tn and C]ui!;ll." ,;denee.
W. must .dmlt, howcvor, Ih~1 it I. GUY Llcl of reat pmi;"!ss Inat is sml<ing. Of
cours. there are !!'lod r<.s~ru; lor tn.s, To carry cu! !Itis toJ.>k with the deplh, the
authority. th. rom~.tet\ce It requ1n\sl', first o/llll, cnormoU3iy diffl<;ult. How.v~

w.

,h'.

SYMPOSIUM

is nol jusl Ill< J!tficully of this eotorprise ilull Jccounts for Qur I.cld",
perform.nce. Just .~ important i, a whole sel 01 historical or =1010gl.:ol cor

it

tlon.. You may have nolic~d tn..1 .1 )'",;.:nl Ih. Wostern Christi.n communit;
localed in tho Iwentle,n..cenlury W..,lem world, W, C:hrisll."" who go on

b!<:ome ptofe"'on.t scienllsts and $.Chola ... alhtnd IwenlMh-<l!1\h.ol)' gradu

schools and universities. And que, lions .boul the b<!ariog of Chri:lti.nity 011 tt.
disdplines ilfId the qUe:>tlOf\' within them do not enjoy much by way of prest
and esleem in the,," unlverslHes, There .re no cou!"SeS .t Harv.rd entitled '1>
lecuLlr Biology and the ChdstJ.n Vir'" of Mon." At O'ford Ih.y don't t.~(
lurs. called "Origin.< of Life from. Christi.n Per.;pe<:1lve:' One can'l wrile
Ph.D. thesis on these subiect>. The Nallonal Science Found.tion won'l I,
favorably on them. Wormg Qn these questions i$ nor a go<>~ w.y 10 gel t.:nuI'<
typIcal universIty; and if you ar, Job hunting you would b<! UJ,.dols<.'<l
.d., me;. you rself ... pro posing to specialize in them, The enn,c sb:uc!u:rt
conlemporary univus!ty lil. Is such os 10 dlsGourose .. rioos werk on th
qu".Uon; ..
This Is therelore "",It... 01 uncommon dW!<:ully, So fat AS I !:now, howe'
no one in aulhorily has promised " rOse g>rd",: .nd II is ..Is<> ll1JIH<!
absolutely =<:W hnportance to the h ..lIh "f the Chdsti.n community. I
worthy of the v'ry b.sl we can muslet; it demands powerful, panent, l1!\$lint
and Ur~l~ el!ort But ils reWilTds match Its demandS: it is e<dong. absolblng;
ttudally llnportant. Mosl of ill, however, it needs to be done. I theretom c:
mend

it to you.

Brie{ Blbllog"'l'by

Ayala, Frands, "The The"')' of Evolution: R"",nt Suc.:...<s .nd Cb.Il."s."":

"""llltwrt artd Crea/ion, ed. Ern." McMullin (No"" Dam., U"t.....1Iy 01 N,
Dame Pr=, 1985).
C<lIrns-$lXIllh, A. G" O"",lic TIlkcD"'" ami the Min",1 Or/g!ns .f !.ife (C.mbi\(
CamE>rldge UAi,.,,,lty Press, 19112).
--S""C1I 0111' I. tht Origin oj ~if' (Cambridge: u.mbridS< Unlwrs!ty IT
1985),
D.rwin, Chodes, Th Origin of Sp:ciC'$.
Dawklns, RIchard. Th lll.iwl W"",,rn.1:&r /L>ndon .nd No,,", YetI:: W. W. No!
and Co., 1986},
_ _~ S.1fo:.; Gent (Oliiord: Oxford UniversIty Pr""s, ]976).
Denlon, Mlchael, ErujutiiJll: A Throry jn Crisis (L<lJ\clo", Burnet 1l000ks, 1985).
Dyson, Fro.rom, Origin:< cf U/t {Cambridge: Dmbridge University Pres.;, 19
Eldredge, Niles, 7'ime F1417W (New Yorle Simon And SchustH. 1935).
Fteddoso, Alfred, "M~d1(val Arl$totelbnism md the Ca,. ,\gaiMt Sewn"
CausatfOl11n Nature," In Dm;"" aNd Human Action. edtted by Thorn,. Me
(lIha", Cornell University Prm, 1988).
Gould, Slephen j., "EVolu~()n.u FaCt ond Theory" in H",', Ted" "nJ HOrSlS

(New Yode Norton, 1983).

I{'wldng. Stephen, 1\ Bri4 Hi>lory oj T'",. (New Yorl:: Banlam So.

'Q!l8).

.~

SYMPOSTIJM
Jtch.r, Philip, V,ullil!g /lmbilio," (C.",bridge, MIT Prei>, 1955),
Johnson, Polllp, 5cimcc and Scienfific lV,iutDlism in il!. tl>!JluJi"I! Controversy. Unpubli>h'd lIlanowipt.
M.d<,y, Oon.ld, The Clockwork 1"'0,,, II Chri,ll'a. P<rspccli,, 0" $C'411" (London:
lOleNa.,;!y Pm" 1974).
_"'Compltmenl>rltjl' In Scientlfk and 'Theoloh';c.1 Thfnl:lng" In ZYzon, Sept
1974, pp.125 fI,
.

Neill, Stephen, tI"gli"nt"'" (Penguin, 1958).

Ridley, Mork, The Problems oj lit~lulion (O.lord:

our. 1985).

Ruse. Mle,,"eJ, Dont.inism f)'ftnd,d (Reading. M.s.., Addlson-\'h-sJoy Publuhing

Co .. 1982).
Shap;ro, llQbert, Origins (New York: Summit Bool<;, 19861.
Simp'on, C.."sc G.ylord, Fossa and Ih, fIi$/ory of LiJt (New York: Scientific
Amerle flooks .nd IV. H, F,.eman and Co.),1'1B3).
-_TheM_joy ''''tum ojE",luliQ. (New Yorl:: Columbia Ulliven<i!y Pr.",1953),
Thr Meaning of EvolUlio" (New Haven: y.l, University P"",., 1949).
_Thf, VI"" oj tif, (New York' Harcourt 8r". and World, 1964).
SpIeth, Poilip, "Ew,>lutional")' ll'ology .nd the Study of Human Nature:' p""
,el'l~,d ~i .. <o",ullalien on Cosmology and Theology 'pon$or<d by the PNsbyt.rian (USA) Church in Dec.. 19B1,
Sta"ley, Steven. TIt, N"", eVD;UU,7lI1ry Timet'.'e (New Yo,k: Basic Books. 19B1).
Stebbins, G. Ledyard, D,rwin To DNA, .Molul.. fa HUm"nily (5.n Frands<O: W.
H. Freem.n and Co. 1961).
Thaxlon, Cnar: W,lter Br.dley, .nd ReS" Olsen, The My<J<TY of Lij'o',.Odgins
(New Yorl:: Philosophic. I Libr'ry, 1984).
van Fro....n, Bas, The SdrtfUjic In,.g. (Oxford: Clarencon Press; New Yo,k:
O~ford Univer5ity Pt<ss, 1980),
'
V,,, TIll, liow.,d. Th, Fourll, Day: Whal Ih, BII)I nd I". H.av""$ .,. Te1J{ng Us
Aboullh, CreaH," (Grand Ropid$: W. ll. cordm,,,.., 1986).
Ville a.ude A., Eldra I'oarl Solomon, and 1". William Dav!;, Biology (Phlla.
delphia; Sound." CoU.go l'ubli.hl~g, lS3S).
Wk~n, Jeffrey S. rvoiulio, Th,rmodyn.rnio, and In/ann.Ii,n: EXltnding Iht DA'"
T''''lin i'rogr.,,, (New Yor);; Oxford Univ.rsi~ Press, 1987),
WUley, ~ .'II, "D.rwln's Place in.the His,,,!), of Thoughl" in M. Banton, (ed)
D.""""",,, and th, 51Udy 0,' $."(1.'1 (London: T ..,lstock Publication, and Chi.
caso, Quad,."gle Books. 1961).

When Faiili and Reason Cooperate

By Howard

J. Vi" TlU

R\E"d

A$ bend!dorl., of til. ~m'

Chrlsl:l.an heritage lvln !'\;lnanS" and I
are likely to .tt!culate our theclo
Il'osition. in .imllar ncop~ vOCiIbuLarle;;,
view II\llny lssuesl'rom ne.uby 51:11." oin~, and hold II erouslffiportimt beliefs
Itt oornrnQn. WI~h little dlfflculty 1
ld US<> my.
ed 'pace to reJlect _PPledatively on the ,ilble Intemet!on Qt ur cOln",1 enls .nd pct>pecth"". How.
ewr, ~llne nsk Qf appeawg CJ(cess{vel nlen . 113, mO$\ of !.hi> rcspo_ wilt
con",,,, tho.e ",cas where there Is some
ement and those matters that
need turlher develQpmcnl. Even in thi> end.
r I shall n~ve to be both selective

.nd btlef,
A. faith, Re ..on on4 Cnnflkt

! hAW long been $D,ely """.d

the fr'quell0 wiUI which tne wam",
metapho, h'$ been crnplo),ed in t
dt;.l:us.t"" of
relallon.h!p 01 ,",Mal
and Christian belief. And y hrlt.tlon seem. 10 b i",."or>iblyamplified
tach Hme I ob..;"'e Ih. proP" fil. 01 "ae>t!on.;denc.' '" the preach, .. o[
modull W..lo", natlmli,m... ".nlly encourage OM .notH In the P<rp<'tu
nOli of thb conroe! thesis In
servic. of thul, ow,: polemlca genda,,l
Hen"" willi .U due ro I!cl lor the long lIb'ory' ()II.~ /;Oit ven;us-reason
dlscussion,l boll"".lt WI4S O$tll1appropriate fur Planting> to emp ~' conflict
rn.l.pharas frequenUy h. did in his paper. In lad, 1 would strong! conMt the
Id thnta Christian
qu, of the "".ntlftc """<ept of ",,(\Iu~on am ItfuUy be
,,,nducted In the a a of the hl.(orlcaJ Il1ltn.v;,rsuf,ore"son tension. A ~rst>ns
.lnady <ommlt:~~o lillth 11\ God.. our concern Is not with laith ...,.,us ason.
nor l> It with /
unambIguous leachillS of Ih. Ilible versus the "t, "S""

sd.""

In