Source: zamburak / Flickr / All Rights Reserved
Every Monday, “Science and the Sacred” features an essay from one of
The BioLogos Foundation’s leaders: Francis Collins, Karl Giberson and
Darrel Falk. Today’s entry was written by Karl Giberson.
Have you ever noticed how easy it is to tell where people stand just based on the words they use? The op-ed writers in The New York Times, for example, seem unable to write about George W. Bush without saying something rude. Journalists on Fox News have the same problem when covering stories about Barack Obama.
Sometimes the rhetoric is just that: rhetoric. You can still get the real story behind the scenes. But other times rhetoric can actually mislead. Consider the rhetoric used to describe evolution by fundamentalist groups like Answers in Genesis, a group dedicated to convincing Christians that evolution is incompatible with their faith.
“Why would the omnipotent Creator of the universe use such a wasteful (and cruel) process of survival of the fittest (meaning that animals have been ripping each other up over millions of years) to bring about the higher forms of life? This view of ‘theistic evolution’ goes against God’s very nature — and logic itself.” The Answers in Genesis Web site poses this question to Christians who accept evolution as God’s method of creation.
This cleverly worded question has been a part of the creation-evolution controversy for more than a century. But note the rhetoric in the question: “wasteful,” “cruel,” “ripping each other up.” In this case, Answers in Genesis depicts God presiding over the process of creation and looking on in approval as animals kill each other in cruel ways. The bloodied survivors of the carnage live on to produce offspring, and that is how human beings are created: survival of the fittest.
This all sounds rather dreadful, and thus it is easy to see why the argument is so effective. But let’s look more closely at this description, which I consider a gross caricature of evolution.
For starters, there were no animals to rip each other up for almost all of evolutionary history. If you are picturing dinosaurs killing each other, that happened during the Mesozoic Era, which began 245 million years ago and ended about 65 million years ago. Life evolved on Earth for more than 3 billion years before there were even simple animals that could have been “ripping each other up.” During the first few billion years, life was dominated by rather boring, single-celled life forms incapable of anything so interesting as ripping each other up.
Now consider the phrase “survival of the fittest.” In the passage above, this process is defined as animals “ripping each other up.” Presumably the ones that rip the best are the most fit. But this is not what evolution suggests at all. Books discussing evolution define the fitness of an organism by approximately its number of offspring. More fit organisms have more offspring and send more of their genes into the next generation. Having large families — whether your offspring are oak trees, brook trout or humans — is what drives evolution.
I have two children; the coauthor of my book, Species of Origins, has none. My relative fitness, as I like to remind him, is two while his fitness is zero — the lowest possible value. The current human gene pool has more of my genes in it than his, but this did not happen because I ripped him up or competed with him in any way. Similarly, if carrot-loving rabbits have more babies than their cousins who prefer broccoli, the rabbit population will end up with a preference for carrots — no ripping required.
Violence certainly occurs in nature, described by Alfred Lord Tennyson as, “Red in tooth and claw.” All you have to do is watch a nature special on the Discovery Channel to witness, for example, a lion ripping up a zebra. But this violence is there whether evolution is true or not. If, as Answers in Genesis contends, God created everything in six days a few thousand years ago, and evolution is completely false, do the animals in the nature special suddenly stop ripping each other up?
In fact, if evolution is true, the small amount of actual cruelty and violence in nature is partially redeemed. When one animal kills another — perhaps because it was slow or less intelligent — it strengthens the gene pool of that species by preventing the weaker animal from passing on its genes. The loss of life, though tragic, contributes to the overall health of the group. There is certainly some cruelty in nature, but evolution can bring about benefits from that cruelty.
This is the BioLogos way of looking at evolution. We accept what science has established with careful observation and decades of hard work, but we see no reason to reject evolution as incompatible with a God who can work through any process. Answers in Genesis, however, disagrees. Their followers are praying that the BioLogos team will “repent of their compromise and return to biblical authority.” In their rhetorically charged opinion, we are confused because “honor man’s fallible ideas instead of God’s infallible Word.”
Word games.
Karl Giberson is executive vice president of The BioLogos Foundation and director of the Forum on Faith and Science at Gordon College in Wenham, Mass.
posted July 6, 2009 at 9:48 am
All you have to do is read the Biblical account, get a bible and open it to the first book. It should say Genesis at the top of the page and you can begin to read . . . The description of how God created goes 100% against the theory of molecules to man (evolution).
The two can in no way relate. look at the evidence – Demand it – http://www.icr.org
posted July 6, 2009 at 10:19 am
This, of course, is assuming what BioLogos calls an “ultraliteral” reading of the chapters — one that assumes not just spiritual authority but also complete scientific and historical accuracy. However, such a reading may not be the best way to read Genesis, nor has it always been read in this way. We encourage you to read “How was the Genesis story interpreted before Darwin?” and “What factors should be considered in determining how to approach scripture?” at http://www.biologos.org.
posted July 6, 2009 at 10:26 am
How is that creationists who get all bent out of shape out of the idea animals killing each other with God’s imprimatur, don’t have a problem with that same God sending people to eternal torment or torture in Hell?
posted July 6, 2009 at 11:13 am
Karl, these Biologos posts have been a daily blessing to me and have helped me see a God who initiates and fosters a relationship with Himself and His created world. The beautiful photos and comments truly show God’s eternal power and divine nature as Romans 2:3 promises. As I have studied Genesis for the past year, I realized that this relational aspect was what God was revealing. It is also interesting to see how science these days has shifted from dichotomous thinking to relational thinking (i.e. in matter and energy or particle and wave theories). The Biologos authors have been instrumental in teaching me how to look at the created world while strengthening my faith. Looking forward to tomorrow’s post!
Your name, if returning to “your” biblical authority includes humans “ripping each other up”, I’ll have to pass. Grace.
posted July 6, 2009 at 12:13 pm
Karl, Great post. Thanks for standing up to the people like AiG and Richard Dawkins who want to convince Christians that evolution and Christianity are incompatible. I greatly appreciate BioLogos, and I think God will use it greatly to bridge the gap that has emerged between many evangelicals and science. Thanks for all you guys do.
posted July 6, 2009 at 5:10 pm
Excellent post. (Amusing as well.) I’m going to send this to one of my friends who’s been stuck on this issue as a reason against evolution. (Perhaps we can stop ripping each other up over it now.)
posted July 14, 2009 at 6:30 am
Dr. Giberson, when you ask “If, as Answers in Genesis contends, God created everything in six days a few thousand years ago, and evolution is completely false, do the animals in the nature special suddenly stop ripping each other up?”, you of course know that the young-earth creationist response would be “No, of course not. But they rip each other up as a result of man’s fall. It wasn’t God’s original plan” Perhaps you could have addressed that response? AiG argues that T Rex’s teeth were used to crack coconuts. :>) Maybe anteaters snouts were used to suck nector from very deep flowers? I know, I know, sounds very doubtful!
Thanks for the website and the posting!
posted August 4, 2009 at 2:01 am
God big time bless you guys for your work.
Perhaps next time you could reference 1 Timothy verse 6-4 and the hipocrite who “disputeth over words” when folks bring up Biblical literalism. I’m more concerned with what Jesus meant rather than the form of the message.
My favorite short story called “Good People” deals with this topic in a powerful way which i think any serious non-fundamentalist Christian should read and arm their heart with.
http://www.newyorker.com/fiction/features/2007/02/05/070205fi_fiction_wallace
sean
posted August 16, 2009 at 1:48 pm
Words do have meaning, Karl.
Which words of the Bible are the ones that you are disputing with science?
Turning water into wine?
Raising the dead?
Virgin birth?
Global flood?
Resurrection?
Eternal Life?
The Fall?
The bible either means what it says or it doesn’t.
If it is from God and the message is not clear or has to be interpreted then God does not want us to be informed.
If the bible is from God and the message is clear, God wants us to know of his plan and his power.
The water covered the highest mountains. Does that need interpreted?
The evening and the morning were the first day. Does that need interpreted?
In six days God created and rested on the seventh. Does that need interpreted?
Christ was born of a virgin. Does that need interpreted?
Christ died and was resurrected in 3 days. Does that need interpreted?
How about this one – you may know it – John 3:16. Does that need interpreted or explained by science?
Science strives to see a “natural” explanation rather than supernatural.
Trying to meld evolution with the bible is like trying to meld adultery with marriage.
You are picking and choosing what science you want to accept and what science you want to reject.
You want to accept the “science” of radioactive dating but want to reject the science that man cannot be raised from the dead – you want to believe that.
You want to accept the science that “shows” there was not a world-wide flood but reject the science that shows a human can be born with a haploid number of chromosomes.
So, Karl, you are a fence sitter. By rejecting the bible, you are rejecting that it came from God and means what it says.
By accepting science, you are saying that God did not mean what he said.
Either way, you are rejecting the bible.
That might be a realistic view for a non-Christian – at least it would be consistent.
You’re right, Karl – they are word games – but they don’t all come from AIG or other creationists.