A LifeWay Research survey polled 1,000 American Protestant pastors asking how strongly they agreed or disagreed with three statements: 1) “I believe Adam and Eve were literal people.” 2) “I believe God used evolution to create people.” and 3) “I believe the earth is approximately 6,000 years old.” The subject is a very hot one right now and shows little signs of abating any time soon. I just finished reading Karl Giberson’s book Saving Darwin and he says, correctly I think, “evolution has become the focal point of a culture war, which means that the goal of the protagonists is to win, not to discover the truth.” (172) It was a fascinating read. I felt he was at times a bit too quick to dismiss arguments against evolution that were non-scientific in nature (i.e., from other disciplines like philosophy or logic). At one point he says,
“What is striking about these unrestrained assaults on evolution is their assumption that evolutionary biologists are too stupid to understand the situation. These dumb biologists confuse philosophy and science; they don’t know their own field; they can’t see that evolution is their religion and their belief in it a faith; they can’t follow a simple argument or identify a preconception. Biology, apparently, is a field filled with morons and knuckleheads.” (193)
I would never say or suggest that any field of study is “filled with morons and knuckleheads.” But does this mean that all of the criticisms from philosophers is entirely misdirected? Isn’t it possible that a scientist has made statements that are not formally from the field of science but rather from the philosophy of science? Is it wrong for a philosopher to point this out without suggesting the scientist is a moron or knucklehead? But I’ve digressed.
Here are the results of the survey:
So if I were answering this poll here’s how I would answer (at least for the time being):
“I believe Adam and Eve were literal people.” Strongly agree (but with more room for doubt than a year ago).
“I believe God used evolution to create people.” Somewhat agree (and leaning towards “strongly agree”)
“I believe the earth is approximately 6,000 years old.” Strongly disagree (and extremely unlikely to change)
It is interesting the reaction I’ve received from people when this subject comes up and I have expressed my recent interest in evolution. I’ve had one person call me a “turncoat” and another say “You’re a Baptist. You can’t believe in evolution.” But not all have been this negative. A few have asked questions simply to understand my thinking. With them I feel I can have an honest conversation even if they disagree with me. For that matter the two negative responses I think were more tongue in cheek than serious (but you never know).
I have just started Peter Enns’ new book The Evolution of Adam. In the Introduction he talks about who is primary audience is. It is written to Christians “of whatever tradition or stripe . . . [who] are convinced, for whatever reason, that evolution must be taken seriously.” (x) He continues, “My aim is to speak to those who feel that a synthesis between a biblically conversant Christian faith and evolution is a pressing concern.” (x) That’s me! For far too many this path I’m on will be viewed as an inevitable road to unrestrained liberalism. I just want to say the conversation is worth having.
David
January 12, 2012 at 10:05 am
Louis, you might take a look at this book for collateral reading. http://stherman.com/Catalog/Writings_of_Father_Seraphim/genesis_book.htm I have just begun looking at it. It is a study of Patristics.
Andrew Rogers
January 13, 2012 at 8:36 am
Thanks for posting. I agree with some of the sentiments above. I think this conversation will be one that helps define the next generation of ministers. I’m not sure it will be the biggest conversation (sexuality and life issues would take precedence, I think) but it will certainly be a significant one.
Norman
January 15, 2012 at 1:23 am
I have been a Christian since I was 12. I earned my Ph.D. from Michigan, M.S. from Michigan State and A.B from Taylor. I am a scientist and I am amazed at the lack of scientific understanding in the religious community. A basic Philosophy course should have given the learner the knowledge that there are different systems of thought. Scientific thought is only one type of thought and there are numerous others. The religious person knows some systems of thought are limited in their capability to explain an effective description of how to live a life. Scientific thought is empirical. That is, it accepts truth only through measurement. Therefore it is limited in its thought process. It does not have the intellectual tools to ‘measure’ God. Even with its limitations it is a very powerful system of thought. A very good book from the 1950′s by Bernard Ramm carefully examined scientific thought and religious thought. From his introduction he writes:
“..there are two traditions in Bible and science… There is the ignoble tradition which has taken a most unwholesome attitude toward science, and has used arguments and procedures not in the better traditions of established scholarship. There has been and is a noble tradition in Bible and science, and this is the tradition of the great and learned evangelical Christians who have been patient, genuine, and kind and who have taken great care to learn the facts of science and Scripture.”
I will state that the majority of the respondents to the survey are in the ignoble tradition. They have not made careful study of science and are going on incomplete ideas.
Louis
January 15, 2012 at 3:32 am
Thank you Norman for your comment. I have seen Ramm’s work mentioned more and more in my readings and while I was familiar with the work before by name I have never read it. I think it might be time to give it a look. I can’t speak for the respondents or wish to characterize them simply by their response to this survey. You may be right–I don’t know. I agree with you that the scientific knowledge in the religious community is sorely lacking. What they possess is filtered through some very unreliable sources. Unfortunately, the level of Biblical knowledge in the religious community is sometimes equally deplorable.
Russ WhiteRuss White
January 17, 2012 at 11:34 am
Now I would urge you to read the other side of the story. As an engineer, and someone who has a fundamental knowledge of the math, mechanisms, and science involved, I can tell you two things.
The first is that science has not “proven” the age of the universe or the Earth. You can “prove” these things if you accept certain foundational presuppositions, but there’s really no reason to accept those presuppositions. The second is that evolution is a theory in crisis, a theory with many many holes covered up with “just so stories.”
You say that Christians who don’t believe in evolution must be ignorant. I say you’re committing the same fallacy you accuse other Christians of (claiming scientists are ignorant).
Don’t just read evolutionists on this score, read some real responses. You say you want to have people to engage with –well, you’re not going to get there by saying Christians who don’t agree are ignorant right off the bat, and must claim ignorance in order to join the conversation.
tmdurey
January 18, 2012 at 3:03 pm
Thoughts – when some people say “evolution,” they mean that no God had anything to do with it. When other say “evolution,” they mean that God started it and then let it go on its own. Still others suggest that the process known as evolution was under the control of God. To me, the third option sounds somewhat like a long-day view as opposed to evolution.
When you say evolution, how do you define it? I’ve found Grudem’s chapter on creation very enlightening, but I’m wondering where you would land on that chapter and why. This is an important conversation and I am truly wondering.