Evolution and the Imago Dei

I agree that the a literal fundamentalist interpretation of scripture can not be defended. We have made so much progress in understanding human evolution and prehistoric history through a variety of sequencing efforts (HapMap, mtDNA and Y STR analysis).

The creation stories in Genesis need to be interpreted differently, that much is clear. It is not as simple as resorting to a figurative interpretation of this text though. We need to look at scripture though a scientific lens just as much as we let science guide or understanding of biology. The creation stories are best understood in light of their political intent in the history of Israel/Judah during the times of the Assyrian invasion. A scholarly approach such as that taken in Israel Finkelstein's "The Bible Unearthed" is the best approach. We also shouldn't put Christianity up on a pedestal in this approach also. Creation stories abound in other cultures that we should also examine if we want to be honest to the BioLogos effort.

Clearly, the creation and genealogical information in the Hebrew Bible is inaccurate, although it was fully intended to be read literally. Examination of mtDNA and Y STR/SNPs makes this very clear (the out of Africa hypothesis for instance, polyphyletic makeup of the Hebrews, etc.). So keeping the open mind of scientist in terms of biology and religion will be very important to get both sides of the religion/science story straight.

If we want to develop the idea of theistic evolution, perhaps we need to put Christianity aside to understand the nature of a Creator god that set up the universe, then perhaps stepped aside to let reality play out according to natural rules.

Kathryn,

Israel Finkelstein's approach (he is primarily an archeologist) develops the idea that the two stories of creation (and other repeated items in the Pentateuch/Torah) are reflected in the details of the Documentary Hypothesis. He argues that a political objective of the Deuteronomist and King Josiah (Moses did not write the Torah) was to merge the distinctive histories of the Kingdoms of Judah and Israel together into a single unified story. Pushing together a pantheon of Gods (Elohim) and the single God YWHW into a single account was a way to accomodate the religious beliefs of the refugees from the north in Israel (while thoroughly discrediting their kings like Ahab and Omri) with those of the tribe of Judah in the south during the Assyrian assault on Israel.

As such, the creation stories provide very interesting political and historical information, but I don't think that they have a prominent place in models for theistic evolution which I still think may hold some truth.

I think evolution is compatible with the concept of god, but it says something about the kind of god that would employ it. First it ramps up the problem of evil because suffering is inherent in how evolution creates new life. Second, many negative human traits are a consequence of our evolving in a world which was far from paradise. So they're our evolutionary legacy rather than a consequence of human choice.

I have three comments to make in reaction to this excellent post and the thoughtful reflections based on it:

(1) I am thankful to be a graduate of a college where there was no conflict between the best that the Academy has to offer and the best that the Christian faith has to offer. It is clear from general observation that this concept is not embraced everywhere!

(2) I am also glad to be a part of a denominational family where a variety of scientific viewpoints on origins may be embraced by its membership, provided that God is acknowledged as the Creator and Sustainer of all--with full human freedom also accepted.

(3) I believe that it was Michael Polanyi who reminded us that all of our human attempts at understanding reality (however "objective" we may believe they are) are simply attempts at understanding and are thereby "mythic" in a general sense. This idea ought to keep all of us properly humble in our quest for truth.

Dr. Collins,

Thank you for this post. I wonder, however, if you're just a bit too sanguine about the theological implications of accepting this evidence for Evangelical theology. Given the apparent emphasis in Gen. 2 and in Romans 5 on the monogenetic origin of humanity, can traditional Evangelical views of scripture and of original sin and the "Fall" survive this evidence? I know that one of the BioLogos contributors, Dr. Giberson, says "no" in his book "Saving Darwin." This is where, it seems to me, we desperately need Evangelical theologians to pay attention. Theologically, a historical "fall" of some sort, and the original sin of the first "human" couple, seems non-negotiable. Can you point to anyone who is trying to piece this together in a meaningful way?

I always go back to the DaVinci painting of God reaching down to touch the finger of Adam, thus imparting the "spirit" to Man, making him a sensient being. Before Adam, there were non-reasoning, "man-kind" sapians of all kinds, leading to homo sapians, which ultimately became the model for Adam and his ability to conjure up the realization that there was a God.

While I believe in both evolution AND Creation, I also believe that God "created" the Big Bang theory, whereby he created order out of chaos. God is BIGGER than our puny minds can imagine Him. The "Imago Dei" maintains that we are made in God's image. Where does it say God has a body? Where does it say God is Spirit only?

Yes, there are, and always WILL be, questions about life on Earth, but isn't the journey worth the destination?

WHEN THE BIBLE DECLARES THAT JESUS WAS BORN BY THE VIRGIN MARY,HOW THEN COULD YOU CORRELLATE FAITH OUTSIDE THE DNA SCIENTIFIC STUDIES? BY FAITH,WE BELIEVE THAT JESUS WAS SENT BY THE FATHER TO REDEEM MAN FROM THE SLAVERY OF SIN THAT BY HIS BLOOD WE ARE MADE CLEAN.WHEN IT COMES TO OUR SPIRITUAL WALK,I THINK THE DNA IS NO LONGER A SOLID GROUND TO BASE OUR CHRIST LIKE IMAGE.WHEN SCIENCE FAILS TO SATISFY AND FAIL TO GIVE US THE FULLEST KNOWLEDGE AND CONCLUSION OR GENERALIZATION OF AN UNKNOWN OR PHENOMENON,WE TEND TO FIND SOME ANSWERS BY THE DECLARATION OF AN OLD BOOK,THE BIBLE.SCIENCE AND BELIEFS ARE 2 SEPARATE SUBJECT,ONLY ONE TRUTH STANDS OUT AND THAT IS THERE IS A GOD WHO CREATED ALL THINGS,AND GOD IS TOTALLY IN CONTROL
AND RESPONSIBLE OF HIS CREATION,BESIDE THAT TRUTH,IT IS MAN'S ALL
IDEAS.

Interesting article and comments. Perhaps the problem is not so much about "GOD creating Man in HIS own image" as it is that "Man is constantly trying to re-create GOD in the image of Man" limited to what Man can conceive of as possible and/or true.
In school I was taught that "Science is inquiry". To "inquire" about someting you have to know of its existance; and enough about it to know what questions to ask. At the bottom of all Human knowledge are certain basic assumptions, ideas that are accepted ,on faith, as being "true" because they can be neither proved or disproved with present data -- the validity of which, at some point, be taken on "faith".
With the advance of technology, the means of collecting new data/types of data, many old assumptions are being changed or proven "false" in the light of new data. Our biggest assumption or "leap of faith" as it were, is that there are certain constants/unchanging laws governing our universe. This is the assumption that drives our technology and our search for knowledge and truth.
As a Christian I've been taught that GOD is omnipotent and omnicient, as the Creator of all,
existing both in and outside of all time, the Alpha and the Omega. Scientific and mathematical inquiry into the workings and history of the physical Universe, only increase my awe of the unfathomable Majesty of our LORD! Who is MAN that he should limit or judge the means of GODs creation? Who among all of humankind can grasp, in its absolute enerity, even one thing?
For those who would use "scientific" facts/proof against GOD, the LORD speaks in the book of Job chapter 38: 2 Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge? 4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding. 5 Whohath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it? 6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone there of; 7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?
The term 'evoultion' simply means change. All of life faces continuous change; seasons, climate, etc. Isn't it marvelous that our Creator created a mechanism by which life can adapt to these changing conditions? Genesis as written by Moses was never intended to be a scientific tretesè or the creation of the world or man; how could it be? the language to do so didn't/dosn't even exist even if the necessary understanding did/does? language in and of itself is an imperfect means of communication (just read a good dictionary or thesarus and see!). Moses wrote what he did for the people and used the terms that they could understand and a history that would give them a community as a 'people' i.e. the 'Hebrews'; there is no reason to believe that he tried to make it all inclusive; how could any man know, let alone write, every detail of all of history?
The Bible tells us about GOD. His love. His constancy. His forbearance. In it, we are given examples of these through early Jewish history as well as the life/death/ressurection of Jesus and of the early beginnings of the Christian church through the writings of the Apostles. To study the Bible can bring wisdom and understanding; if done with an open mind. In gospel of John 20:29 Jesus says ...Thomas, because thou hast seen me thou hast believed; blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.
In the end, there is no way that I can know the details of the Creation, I wasn't there, and I wouldn't have had the capacity needed for them, even if I was. As to what has happened since, there is no proof that can be made without first making some basic assumptions which themselves require a certain leap of faith. In the same way, nitpicking certain parts of the Bible, requiring absolute emperical evidence, may be interesting exercises in logic and stroke ones ego, but do little more than muddy the issue. As St Paul admonishes us in 1 Corinthians, the freedom to do a thing without sin, should not be done if in doing so it would cause someone else to come to harm.
I love science, and reading scientific speculation about how things work, what means GOD used in creating our universe and world. I love reading speculations (theories) about the history of our universe, planet, life on earth and evidence of life and human history that is dug out of the ground.
I am facinated by and led to wonder about many things that I can never know on this side of the grave. When I meet my LORD in the hereafter, perhaps I'll ask.

I see I still haven't figured out how to add "white space" between the lines that will transfer from WordPad!!
Robert Carstens Jr.