AN EVOLUTION SOLUTION?
By Charlotte Ostermann
If a theist can acknowledge the
possibility of evolution, and an evolutionist can acknowledge the possibility
of a creator, where is the conflict?
This conundrum is at the root of the current controversy, and of its
solution. Let’s examine both pieces of
the puzzle.
Can one be a Christian (the only
theistic religion I can speak for personally) and believe man evolved from
bacteria? Like it or not, many do. It is uncharitable hubris to deny the fact
that some true Christians find scope within the interpretation of Scripture for
God to have designed evolution as the means of diverse creation. Now, can the scientist convinced that
evolution has occurred, or committed to the rigorous standards of experimental
science propose an intelligent First Cause?
Like it or not, many do. It is
patent nonsense to deny the fact that some highly credentialed scientists find
scope within the interpretation of scientific evidence for a purposeful
Designer.
In the middle of this muddle are the
majority of Christians who would be content if biology teachers asserted that
nothing in the fossil record or the theory of evolution contradicts belief in
God. With them, the
majority of atheistic evolutionists who can admit that there is less
unequivocal evidence for macro- than for micro-evolution. At the extremes are those who would make
belief in evolution a ticket to hell, and those who cannot bear to have the
different usages of the word ‘evolution’ more clearly defined.
For the first, let me quote Pope John
Paul II who, though he could not speak for all Christians, clearly was one and
earned universal respect: “… the origin
of life and evolution, [is] an essential subject which deeply interests the
church, since revelation, for its part, contains teaching concerning the nature
and origins of man. … if, at first sight, there are
apparent contradictions, in what direction do we look for their solution? We
know, in fact, that truth cannot contradict truth.” For the second, let me suggest that in defining
the terms microevolution (changes and adaptations within a species that account
for its differentiation, such as moth or finch diversification in response to
environmental variables), macroevolution (changes from one life form to
another, such as amoeba becoming man, dinosaur becoming bear), and dogmatic/ideological
evolution (belief that undesigned and undirected
natural processes account for all living things and disprove the existence of,
or absolutely did not involve, a creator or supernatural intelligence of any
kind at any point) and sorting out the
evidences accordingly, you would be doing our state and
students a great service.
The creationist is frustrated by the
irreconcilable dilemma of belief in “God the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven
and earth” and belief in evolution, the process almighty, random
emergence of life from soup. Let him
understand that we are all looking at the same scripture and interpreting it
differently because of the different mix of other beliefs and understandings we
bring to bear upon it. The evolutionist
is frustrated by the vast numbers of people who, despite his assertions (per Biology,
Miller/Levine, high school textbook) that “evolution
is random and undirected” (bold, as in text) continue to insist that, if macroevolution
happened, an Intelligence far beyond ours planned
it. Let him understand that we are all
looking at the same fossil record – the one with explosions of whole creatures,
transitional gaps, and open questions about mechanisms – and interpreting it
differently because of our different presuppositions.
Is a theist free
to examine the evidence for and against macroevolution (none dispute the
occurrence of microevolution) and conclude that God created through this
means? Absolutely. Is a biology teacher free to offer his
students such evidence, or the testimony of scientists who conclude that its
order, complexity and beauty imply design?
I would hope so.
It is possible to keep religion out of the
debate if evolution is taught as a possible means of the development and not as
the self-sufficing explanation for the origin of life. It must be remembered
that atheistic materialism is as much a religious position as Christianity or
Hinduism. Separating church and state to
the point where we forget that religious presupposition of one kind or another
underlies all other thought is simply ignorant.
In a country founded upon the belief that God created all men equal, it
shouldn’t be too threatening to mention in science classes that there might be
a God and that science can’t prove or disprove it. Once we get past knee-jerk opponent bashing
and indoctrination from both extremes, we can find a large expanse of middle
ground on which to agree and get on with education.