christianity and evolution: lessons from the past, prospects for the future dennis r. venema

Christianity and evolution: lessons from the past, prospectsfor the futureDennis R. VenemaDepartment of Biology, Trinity Western UniversityFellow, BioLogos Foundation

Michelangelo: The Creation of Adam (1511)

Resources:

Evolution Basics: a 40 part blog series (and counting!) onevolutionary theory from a Christian perspective

www.biologos.org/blog

Ted Davis: Science and the Bible

Talk outline:

Part one: learning from the past

Part two: evaluating current concordistapproaches to evolution

Part three: coming full circle

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Nikolaus_Kopernikus.jpg

Talk outline:




Titian: The Fall of Man (c. 1570)

Talk outline:




Bruegel the Elder: The Tower of Babel (1563)

The findings of evolutionary biology present a number of perceived tensions with common interpretations of Scripture:

Review:


1. Humans are not de novo creations, but share ancestry with other forms of life.

Review:



2. Humans do not descend from an ancestral couple, but rather a large population.

Review:



2. Humans do not descend from an ancestral couple, but rather a large population.

3. The boundaries of the population that led to modernhumans are fuzzy. There is not an easy point of demarcationbetween “human” and “non-human”.

Review:

Christian responses to these data are varied. ManyChristians simply reject the evidence for evolution andfavor an anti-evolutionary approach (YEC, OEC, ID). These approaches require rejection of a large swath ofmodern science.

http://www.bryan.edu/origins.html

Other Christian responses attempt to respect the science, and find a means of integrating it with orthodox Christian faith.

In general, these approaches fall into concordist andnon-concordist approaches, each with their strengthsand weaknesses.

These same approaches were in play when heliocentrismwas a theological issue for the church – and revisitingthis time in our history may prove informative for our times.




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Nikolaus_Kopernikus.jpg

Learning from history: heliocentrism as a test case

Nicolaus Copernicus (1473 – 1543)

Copernicus was the first to propose a coherent model of a heliocentric (sun-centered) solar system

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Nikolaus_Kopernikus.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/

File:CopernicSystem.png

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Geoz_wb_en.svg

Up until this time a geocentric model was assumed, basedon common sense observation, as well as 1600+ years ofscriptural interpretation:

Galileo Galilei (1564 – 1642)

Galileo made additional observations thatsupported heliocentrism:

- the moons of Jupiter (1609)- observed the phases of Venus (1610)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Justus_Sustermans_-_Portrait_of_Galileo_Galilei,_1636.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Phases-of-Venus.svg

- the second observation ruled out the Ptolemaic model of geocentrism, but not that of Tycho Brahe

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tychonian_system.svg

- the key difference betweenthe models is a stationaryversus moving earth

- Brahe’s model was developedas a more theologically acceptablemodel in response to Galileo/Copernicus

Copernicus and Galileo encountered theological resistance:

(e.g. Martin Luther):

"There is talk of a new astrologer who wants to prove that the earth moves and goes around instead of the sky, the sun, the moon, just as if somebody were moving in a carriage or ship might hold that he was sitting still and at rest while the earth and the trees walked and moved. But that is how things are nowadays: when a man wishes to be clever he must . . . invent something special, and the way he does it must needs be the best! The fool wants to turn the whole art of astronomy upside-down. However, as Holy Scripture tells us, so did Joshua bid the sun to stand still and not the earth."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliocentrism

Copernicus and Galileo encountered theological resistance:

(e.g. John Edwards):

“The Copernican Opinion seems to confront a higher Principle than that of Reason. If we will speak like Men of Religion, and such as own the Bible, we must acknowledge that their Assertion is against the plain History of the Holy Book; for there we read that the Sun stood still in Joshua’s time, and went back in King Hezekiah’s. Now this Relation is either true or false. If it be the latter then the Inspired Scripture is false, which I take to be as great an Absurdity as any Man can be reduced to.”

Edwards, John. A Demonstration of the Existence and Providence of God From theContemplation of the Visible Structure of the Greater and Lesser World. London, 1696, p 33.

The reason produced for condemning the opinion that the earth moves and the sun stands still is that in many places in the Bible one may read that the sun moves and the earth stands still…

In contrast to the concordism of his opponents, Galileo defended himself with appeals to a non-concordist,accommodationist approach:

Galileo Galilei: Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina, 1615

The reason produced for condemning the opinion that the earth moves and the sun stands still is that in many places in the Bible one may read that the sun moves and the earth stands still…

These propositions uttered by the Holy Ghost were set down in that manner by the sacred scribes in order to accommodate them to the capacities of the common people, who are rude and unlearned.

In contrast to the concordism of his opponents, Galileo defended himself with appeals to a non-concordist,accommodationist approach:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Stellarparallax_parsec1.svg

Given the theological benefitsof Tychonian geocentrism, Christians largely maintainedgeocentric views until the 1800sand rejected Galileo’s approachto Scripture.


Given the theological benefitsof Tychonian geocentrism, Christians largely maintainedgeocentric views until the 1800sand rejected Galileo’s approachto Scripture.

In the absence of “convincing”evidence, there was no perceivedneed to alter 1800 years ofconsistent interpretation.


It was in the 1800s that two key pieces of evidence forheliocentrism would becomeavailable: the observation ofstellar aberration, and later, stellar parallax.


It was in the 1800s that two key pieces of evidence forheliocentrism would becomeavailable: the observation ofstellar aberration, and later, stellar parallax.

Eventually, geocentric viewswithin the church would declinein light of the scientific evidence,and Scriptural interpretationwould shift accordingly.




Titian: The Fall of Man (c. 1570)

As with the Galileo affair, current evangelical responsesto evolution encompass concordist and non-concordist approaches.



While non-concordist approaches cannot be affected by advances in the relevant science, concordist approaches can be so affected – to the point where they become untenable.



While non-concordist approaches cannot be affected by advances in the relevant science, concordist approaches can be so affected – to the point where they become untenable.

Conversely, non-concordist approaches are widely perceived to have no apologetic value.


Following on from ~2009, some evangelical scholarshave attempted to construct a model of human originsthat concords with (a particular interpretation of) Scripture, as well as the findings ofmodern genomics.

(To be sure, many more havesimply sought to find ways todiscredit it.)


For example, Vern Poythress rejects common ancestry and(erroneously) claims that estimates of Ne are long-term averages unable to detect a bottleneck down to two individuals:

One more thoughtful concordist model is the substantial work of C. John (Jack) Collins: his book-length treatment appeared in 2011.


Collins attempts to establish what he terms“Mere historical Adam andEve-ism” - with several key points to the model.


Collins attempts to establish what he terms“Mere historical Adam andEve-ism” - with several key points to the model.

Since 2009 - 2010, however,advances in genomics havealready begun to pressureCollins’ tenets:

Challenges:

There is no convenient point of biological demarcation between “human” and “non-human” since human speciationis a gradient over time.

This makes it challenging to identify the “image of God” – which, for Collins, includes our distinctiveness from animals.

Collins spends a significant amount of time noting the differences between humans and chimpanzees in support of this assertion, which rather misses the point:

Challenges:

Collins’ concern is partly founded on his view that the imago Dei is in some measure hereditary – hence it must spread from Adam and Eve (or from a small population of which they are leaders).

Hominin interbreeding involving our lineage is problematicfor such a scenario: do other hominins have the imago Dei? What about the offspring of interbreeding?

Challenges:

Again, there is no convenient point of biological demarcation between “human” and “non-human” since human speciation is a gradient over time.

Placing the origins of humanity at 40,000 years ago is problematic, since anatomically modern humans enter thefossil record at ~200,000 years ago.

Placing the origins of humanity at 40,000 years ago is problematic, since anatomically modern humans enter thefossil record at ~200,000 years ago.

Placing Adam and Eve at 200,000 years ago, however, means that there is ~190,000 years of human remains withno evidence of activities referenced in Genesis (metalworking, agriculture, animal husbandry).

For Collins, original sin (following Augustine) is hereditary.

The “early Adam” approach, while tempting, faces the absence of evidence for human religious expression until~50,000 years ago.

The “late Adam” approach places Adam well after the adventof humans in the fossil record.

Challenges:

Ne < census size

At no point prior to large-scale agriculture could a singletribe of 10,000 (or more) individuals be sustained as a unit.

Limited polygenesis is in fact a feature of our heritage – some modern humans have ancestors from other hominin species. Collins’ view of a tribe of all humanity is untenable.




Bruegel the Elder: The Tower of Babel (1563)

Options for moving forward:

Revise and re-work a concordist model in light of newdevelopments?

Shift to a non-concordist understanding?



Revise and re-work a concordist model in light of newdevelopments? (Add epicycles?)

Shift to a non-concordist understanding?



Revise and re-work a concordist model in light of newdevelopments? (Add epicycles?)

Shift to a non-concordist understanding? (Capitulate onthe authority of Scripture?)


What is more important than finding a quick resolution tothe perceived conflict is

(a)an affirmation of points of agreement: the Bible is the

inspired Word of God; humans are created in the image of God; humans have fallen into sin and need Christ’s redemption

What is more important than finding a quick resolution tothe perceived conflict is

(a)an affirmation of points of agreement: the Bible is the

inspired Word of God; humans are created in the image of God; humans have fallen into sin and need Christ’s redemption

(b) a commitment among believers to allow time and space for charitable dialogue.

Hence I should think it would be the part of prudence not to permit anyone to usurp scriptural texts and force them in some way to maintain any physical conclusion to be true, when at some future time the senses and demonstrative or necessary reasons may show the contrary. Who indeed will set bounds to human ingenuity? Who will assert that everything in the universe capable of being perceived is already discovered and known? Let us rather confess quite truly that “Those truths which we know are very few in comparison with those which we do not know.”



Questions and discussion

christianity and evolution: lessons from the past, prospects for the future dennis r. venema

Documents

circle http

number of perceived

evolution andfavor

evolution basics

current concordistapproaches

png13 http

venemadepartment of

christian responses