Is Theistic Evolution Really A Biblical Option?

I close ransacked Science & Faith on the topic of theistic evolution.  In chapter 16, Where Do Animals Come From? Biological Evolution and Darwinism, Dr. Collins writes,

And what of mankind?  Does the Bible allow that we are descended from animal ancestors?  A great deal depends on what you mean by "descended" - if you mean "with only ordinary natural factors in operation," then certainly the answer is no.  The image of God in man is the result of special divine action, and not a development of the powers of any other animal -- at least, that's what Genesis 1:27 implies.

Science and Faith, p. 268

But what about God using the process of evolution and nudging it along at certain points?  Will the Hebrew text allow for this?

Some Christians are convinced that macro evolution happened.  They also believe the Bible is God's word.  How can they believe both?  There are two common approaches.  One, interpret Genesis as poetic literature.  Two, interpret Genesis as historical but in a broad enough way to allow for macro evolution to also be true.

I am not concerned with approach one.  The Biblical case is weak.  Collins, like many others before him, easily dismantles this approach.

It is the second approach I was curious about when I picked up his book.  Collins is an expert in the Hebrew language.  Can the text support this approach?

The answer is maybe.

Because of Genesis 1:27, it is clear that God was involved directly in the process.  It is not possible to credibly interpret the creation of man as a 100 percent natural process of biological laws.  God, however, could have intervened in a direct way in the process.  For example, some nineteenth century scholars suggested that the body of Adam developed by natural selection, and that the sole supernatural action was God giving him a soul.  In other words, God simply injected a soul into an ape or hominid and produced Adam.

Collins refutes this view because the image of God involves more than a soul -- it involves a "body-soul" nexus.  Collins states that "this nexus displays the image of God; that is, the body, with its brain, muscles, bones, blood, and so on, is a necessary part of the display."  God would have had to inject a soul and then upgrade the body to support this hypothesis.

Some argue that this is just what happened: the "dust" of Genesis 2:7 ("the LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground") is a loose description of an upgrade from a hominid plus a soul injection.   Seems like a little bit of a stretch to me, but Collins surprised me.

"I can commend this view as recognizing what must be involved in being human, and in preserving the distinction between man and other animals -- a distinction that results from supernatural action. 

I can even see how someone might defend this from the meaning of the word "form" in Genesis 2:7 - since in Jeremiah 1:5 the same word is used for the natural process of child development in the womb.

I said that I can commend this approach, and that I can see how one might defend it; but I didn't say I agree with it.  I am inclined to take the "dust" of Genesis 2:7 in its ordinary sense of "loose soil," that is, it wasn't a living animal when God started to form it into the man.  I think this makes the best sense in view of the way "the man became a living creature" after the operation -- that is, he wasn't a modified living creation.

[emphasis added]

Science and Faith, p.269

It sounds like to me that Collins leaves open the possibility of this view but thinks it is a less likely interpretation.

I continue to be an ardent skeptic of human evolution.  The fossil record is weak at best.  The trend line points away from locating a common ape-human ancestor.  The DNA evidence offers no proof and how could it?   We simply cannot observe human evolution in action.

The truth is, we know there was one designer and he could have easily chosen to use DNA as a design template.  I do this myself all the time as I create software.  I rarely start from scratch.  I usually modify something I have already written.

God clearly did not have to rely on random mutation and natural selection to construct life.  His hands were not tied.  The neo-Darwinian hypothesis wins only if you accept that the rules of the game are rigged and only naturalistic explanations count.  I am after a bigger goal : truth.

Still, for those Christians who are committed to the common descent narrative, Collins seems to leave the door cracked open provided you accept that God was heavily directing the process.

Comments

[Paul]

It appears that Collins is suggesting that the body is a necessary part of being created in the image of God, i.e. that two arms, a nose etc. are in some way related to the image of God.

Is this a normal idea? I had understood that image was generally thought to refer specifically to the soul; that it would be a stretch to say that God had a 'body' of any sort, let alone a bipedal primate form. Any insight you have would be appreciated.

[AJ]

Option three:

Take God, in His human form, at His word. John 1 states that through Jesus all was created that is created. He was there. In my opinion, He spoke straight to the heart of the matter...

Mar 10:6 But from the beginning of creation, 'God made them male and female.'

In my opinion, that leaves little Biblical room for human creation as an extended process of evolution.

Paul, theologically, "In His image" is a pretty widely debated issue. Some feel that it is a reference to the trinity, man having mind, body and soul.

God spoke to your question, in that a temple could not house Him. He is infinite, thus not a bipedal primate by which we were patterned. You were correct in that understanding. :)

[Mr. Dawntreader]

Collins' thinking on this is a little new to me as well. He devotes a large section of the book to discussing "the image of God" concept.

Basically Collins is speaking against dualism. He refutes the idea that human beings have two completely different natures : a physical nature and a soul. He makes the argument that the Bible depicts man with both a soulish and physical components. These components are intertwined. It is a holistic view ... which is typical of how the Hebrew mind works (versus the Greeks who dichotomized the soul and body).

Therefore, Collins was making the point that it would be unbiblical to think that a hominid or an ape could receive a soul without an upgraded body to go along with it. God would have had to upgrade the body and infuse a soul jointly since they are tangled and intertwined.

[Nick]

There are two common approaches. One, interpret Genesis as poetic literature. Two, interpret Genesis as historical but in a broad enough way to allow for macro evolution to also be true.

Is there perhaps a third approach similar to Collins' thinking of the days? If I understand your summary correctly, Collins thinks that a) "day" is used in an ordinary sense (with morning and evening, etc), but b) "day" is an analogy used to describe what was actually a long period of time. Why should we not treat the rest of the creation account analogically?

Wrt to theistic evolution, my thinking is fairly straightforward. I'm convinced that evolution is currently occurring -- as certain as I am of anything in science. I am also convinced that God exists and is sovereign. Therefore, evolution must be an expression of God's will.

[Mr. Dawntreader]

With any stance involving evolution, the nit picky details are crucial ... so,

Do you think God was directly involved ... or do you take more of a "deistic" view of macro evolution ... that it is 100 percent natural means ( random mutation, natural selection only ) and God is no more involved in macro evolution than He is involved in keeping gravity working ...

What is your view?

[Nick]

Do you think God was directly involved ... or do you take more of a "deistic" view of macro evolution ... that it is 100 percent natural means ( random mutation, natural selection only ) and God is no more involved in macro evolution than He is involved in keeping gravity working ...

I think that dichotomy misses the point entirely, and is especially problematic where it implies that God doesn't have much of a role in keeping gravity working. If God is sovereign and active in the universe, then he is involved in evolution and in gravity in exactly the same way. That we can describe the orbit of the earth around the sun in terms of the laws of physics rather than by invoking God's will does not mean that we must be deists. Similarly, that we can describe evolution in terms of natural processes has no implications one way or the other for our understanding of God.

[Mr. Dawntreader]

"If God is sovereign and active in the universe, then he is involved in evolution and in gravity in exactly the same way. That we can describe the orbit of the earth around the sun in terms of the laws of physics rather than by invoking God's will does not mean that we must be deists."

No need to get defensive. I never called you a deist. I am familiar with your beliefs.

You answered my question perfectly. You see God's hand in every facet of sustaining creation. Taking our next breath, then, is a faith based exercise dependent on God's sovereign control and direct intervention in the world. I would suspect that your view (assuming I am stating it correctly) is more offensive to deists than the average Christian's view. :)

I share your view of God's complete and total control over aspect of nature and the laws of the cosmos.

I take a different view of evolution than you do. I am convinced that the neo-Darwinian model of macroevolution is philosphically driven. In my opinion, it is an unfalsifiable model in any way that matters to truth hunters. It amounts to conjecture.

[Mr. Dawntreader]

Nick,

Are you an open theist?

[Nick]

Didn't mean to sound defensive. Was just trying to be clear.

I don't think I know enough about open theism to be sure. I do think there are descriptions of God's decision making, particularly in the Old Testament, that are compatible with open theism, but one can support almost any position with a limited selection of verses. My suspicion is that we are simply unable to understand or even describe coherently what it means for God to be eternal, omnipotent, and omniscient.

I'm inclined to focus my attempts to understand God's nature more on the person of Jesus, as I think that he was the way God engaged us in a manner that our limited intellects can start to understand.

Anyway, Collins book sounds interesting. It's on my "to buy" list.

[AJ]

Nick,
I've enjoyed your answers, though I too disagree with you on evolution. I believe your statement that evolution is happening now is a misnomer.

Right now, we see changes within species-- changes confined within set boundaries. To say that evolution is happening now (changes within boundaries of species) proves evolution (changes from kind to kind) is a bit of a stretch.

I most enjoyed your answer that illustrates our inability to comprehend God, or describe Him in our finite language. Many of us theologians could learn a lesson from this concept-- i.e. His sovereignty vs our choice, His predestination of us in His timeless, infinite perspective, etc...

But I think that open theism is easily understood as incorrect when His attributes are studied both logically and scripturally. I would encourage such a study if you haven't made up your mind on the subject. IMHO, it is a defining doctrine for the Christian.

As to Jesus, I don't even fully comprehend Him. i.e. the hypostatic union... Some things we have to take on faith.

Take care...

[Nick]

Hi AJ:

Thanks for the response. If/when I have some time, I'll do some reading on open theism. It's not exactly a hot topic in my denomination, and I don't think I've ever encountered it in a sermon or Sunday school class.

Right now, we see changes within species-- changes confined within set boundaries. To say that evolution is happening now (changes within boundaries of species) proves evolution (changes from kind to kind) is a bit of a stretch..

I've never heard anyone satisfactorily explain exactly what this "barrier" is or what exactly defines a "kind." Speciation events have been observed, and the genetic, ecological, and behavioral mechanisms that could (and do) create reproductive barriers are multifarious.

FWIW, I have met other Christian biologists and geneticists, both professionally and socially, and I don't think I've ever met one who wasn't convinced that descent with modification via some variant of Darwinian natural selection best explained the data. I'm sure they're out there, but they are scarcer than hen's teeth (the genetic remnants of which are interesting to consider).

I guess we all have our professional biases. For me, if a theologian rejects evolution on the basis of theology, it's prima facie evidence that he has the theology wrong :-)

[Mr. Dawntreader]

FWIW, I have met other Christian biologists and geneticists, both professionally and socially, and I don't think I've ever met one who wasn't convinced that descent with modification via some variant of Darwinian natural selection best explained the data.

I have met Christian biologists who are skeptical ... and at least one who said he would not dissent against evolution until he had tenure secured. He has a family to feed ... I don't blame him.

Behe's latest book divides evolution into three pieces ... common descent, natural selection and random mutation. Behe accepts common descent, natural selection and rejects random mutation as sufficient to explain the vast differences we see. He bases his argument on observational evidence ... and we have plenty of evidence to look at.

I have not seen evolution sliced up this way ... but I think it will be helpful to advance the discussion. I am guessing that the biologists of which you speak see evidence for common descent and natural selection, and accept the other premise uncritically.

[Nick]

I have not seen evolution sliced up this way ... but I think it will be helpful to advance the discussion. I am guessing that the biologists of which you speak see evidence for common descent and natural selection, and accept the other premise uncritically.

I don't think they accept the third premise uncritically, but that is definitely an interesting way to slice the debate. What makes it particularly interesting, is that if one accepts descent with modification and natural selection, then one has accepted basically all of Darwin's argument. Remember that Darwin didn't know what generated the diversity on which natural selection acts. It was the neo-Darwinian synthesis that linked evolution with genetics and the later revolution in molecular biology that started to give us a handle on how "random" mutation generates diversity.

I haven't read Behe's new book yet, but it sounds as though he is basically fighting a skirmish within evolutionary biology. It will be interesting to see how it is received by people who do not accept natural selection and common descent. On the other side, I have seen a couple of reviews (e.g. Ken Miller in Nature and Sean Carroll in Science) who engage Behe's argument. They think he has run off the rails scientifically, but they aren't simply dismissing him as a creationist.

[Mr. Dawntreader]

Nick,

Check out Behe's responses to those critics at his own blog:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/blog/A3DGRQ0IO7KYQ2/ref=cm_blog_blog/105-6061966-8930801

Good to read both sides and all.

I agree with your distinction between Darwinism -vs- Neodarwinism.

You should read Behe's book. His claim and approach are new. After observing trillions and trillions of random mutations, we have a good idea about what is rational to expect from random mutations and what requires blind faith and hand waving.

[Aaron Snell]

Hi Nick,

Speciation events have been observed

Such as...?

[Nick]

Aaron,

There is a summary here, with lots of cited references for you to follow up:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

Speciation can also be inferred from "ring species" and from island biogeography. There are also cases where two distinct populations of the same species overlap but genetic differences prevent easy gene flow between the populations (e.g. in European mice). This can probably be thought of as speciation "in progress."

Good to read both sides and all.

Coyne now has a response to Behe's response:
http://www.talkreason.org/articles/Coyne.cfm

It's an interesting debate.

Richard Dawkins also made an interesting point in his review in the NY Times; when he's not waffling on about atheism, he still writes good stuff about science. Anyway, Dawkins pointed out that artificial selection could be seen as a challenge to Behe's argument. Darwin used artificial selection as an analogy to his theory of natural selection. Traditionally, critics of evolution have argued that a key difference is in the selection, natural vs. artificial. The critics typically don't take issue with the source of the genetic diversity that is selected -- in both natural and artificial selection, it comes from mutation. Rather, they argue that intelligence is required for the selection.

So (simplifying for the sake of argument) we have evolution = "random" mutation plus natural selection. Selective breeding = "random" mutation + artificial selection. Since, both selective breeding and natural evolution depend on mutation, selective breeding should be crippled if Behe's calculations about the limites of mutation are correct. Since selective breeding is clearly effective almost beyond our wildest dreams (consider the morphological differences between corn and its wild ancestor), then Dawkins argues that Behe's calculations must be wrong. At the very least, natural evolution should be able to produce the same degree of complex changes as artificial selection.

Anyway, its an interesting argument. Note that it is not an argument for speciation or common descent, but that's not necessary, because Behe already accepts those legs of the three-legged stool of evolution.

[David]

I've been reading the posts and am relieved to see Christians at least able to discuss this topic. I used to go along with the Sunday school flannel-graph explanation of Creation. Now it is obvious to me that God must have used a process that, from the available evidence, could be mistaken for evolution (none of us REALLY knows how He did it after all). But I know he didn't do it like magic 10k years ago. No where in Scripture do we see God or Jesus doing magic tricks. Even Jesus' miracles were sped up natural processes. I tend to stand by Dr. Gerald Schroeder's theory (http://www.geraldschroeder.com/new.html) that the universe is, from our current perspective, around 15 b.y.o.; or from the perspective of the moment of Creation, a.k.a., the Big Bang, about 6 days old (yes, that's 6-24 hour days) Seem contradictory? The two time-frames are literally one and the same. Think Time Dilation and Relativity. The numbers really do add up for this theory. And it's enough time for Him to prepare the earth for man. Why would God need to hurry?