It is a wide spread belief in our culture, by Christian and non-Christian alike, that the reality of evolutionary science logically dispels the notion of a Creator. In response to evolutionary science, its philosophical foundations and its scientific derivatives, many Christians defend Genesis 1-3 as an a historically factual and objectively sustainable account of the beginning of the world. Conversely, those who oppose the “Christian” view have similarly responded by asserting that the objective factual evidence backs up the evolutionary position.
Thus many in the evolutionary camp believe that Science implies that God does not exist. Ironically, this is also true in the Christian camp. In effect they agree. So what is truly being put forth is an identical epistemology (Rationalism) that splits into two utterly separate directions. Between the two the difference lies not in epistemological methodology, but the base upon which the methodology is employed.
Both camps accept the now quite questionable project of Enlightenment rationalism. The difference lies in the authority to dictate the terms of how the rationalistic approach is employed. Evangelical Christians accept Scripture (rightly) as the basis upon which all other knowledge must be formed. For Christians Scripture serves as a corrective. They would argue that even if evidence suggested an evolutionary reality, Scripture in Genesis 1-3 makes this impossible and therefore the human reasoning at this point breaks down and is “missing something”. This would not a satisfactory response however.
A re-construal of the evidence to support the presuppositional belief in Genesis 1-3 as God’s revelation of how creation began would be necessary. This is where the Christian position succumbs to rationalism, and thus creates what could be called a “revelational empiricism”.
In this picture, Scripture is authoritative for coincides with the Enlightenment understanding of reality and combined these symbiotic conceptual categories clearly–and authoritatively–explain objective reality. The Bible is true because it gives “just the facts” and the “facts” point to Scripture.
Therefore, because Scripture participates in the rationalistic project, objective evidence, as the true representation of reality, must be understood to support the biblical claims no matter their ostensible appearance. If the evidence appears to support another position other than the literal interpretation of Genesis then, by definition, the facts “are misunderstood” or being intentionally manipulated.
Of course, the evolutionary atheist is in the same position. Again, it is is only the basis upon which they build their rationalistic project that is different. Here the authority is certainly not Scripture, but the foundation of Enlightenment rationalism itself. Its method is its foundation. The scientific method as it is known is glorified to the highest level subject only to the strict analytical logic constructed by the human mind. There can be no consultation with the “divine” for it is unknowable because it cannot be subject to human reason.
In defense of Enlightenment rationalism, it has produced such practical application and improvement of the human (physical?) condition that it’s efficacy can hardly be doubted. If the improvement of the human spiritual condition has not been matched, that is certainly a topic open for debate but I would take the position that the spiritual condition has not markedly deteriorated in the intervening years. Let us not romanticize the past. While the capacity for mankind to inflict damage on itself and its fellow has been augmented, I do not observe that its desire so to do has changed: consider the sacking of Constantinople, the Conquistadors, the Wars of Religion. I am not going all Dawkins on you. I am just saying that human beings kill each other with whatever justification they have at hand, be it religion, social Darwinism or racial superiority. The same might be true of the good that we do for each other but that is another debate.
Scott, Thanks for your note.
I certainly agree that the practical benefits of the Enlightenment I have certainly benefited humanity in ways that have fundamentally transformed the world as we know it, for the better. While there have been many negative side effects to this transformation, I do believe the material gains resulting from the Enlightenment are undiminished by them. What I am pointing out is the irresponsible application of Enlightenment principles. The problem is that the tool (Enlightnement methodology) is sometimes misused by the laborer. Enlightenment epistemology is not an all encompassing worldview. It can inform about those things in its particular domain, but it is restricted by the very epistemological approach it believes human beings are inherently bound to–rationalist objectivism. The problems I want to identify is the misuse of the Enlightenment to support a literal, or as John Walton calls it “concordist” reading of the Genesis creation accounts. I believe Christians are using this method when they insist on reading the account as “literal history” and that by doing so they are caught up in a profoundly contradictory relationship to the Enlightenment–a system of thinking many of them do not understand. It is a misuse of the system; on the one hand they reject it because it fundamentally asserts, not that God does not exist (as many of them believe), but rather that, even if God did exist he could not be known because he is not available to our immediate “objective” senses. Yet, they immediately turn around and try to engage modern science, whose methodology is born from the Enlightenment, and argue on the basis of Enlightenment epistemology that Genesis 1 is a literal, historical, and even scientific account of material origins. It is all about how and for what the Enlightenment is used, not whether the Enlightenment itself is good or evil.
And a month and a half later… I reply.
Being a microbiology undergraduate and a Christian I would highlight a few things… correct me if I am wrong on some. I would suppose that most of academia in theology have very VERY little science training; i.e. maybe a one semester biology class. The same or less can be said of those in the sciences… our exposure to religion in secular college is ‘Bible as literature’ courses. Thus, for a member of one branch of thinking to make ascertations about the thought process of those in another branch of thinking may be unfounded.
I was fortunate to attend Colorado State U. where they invited ‘christian’ scientists a few times to present their views and defend them. These persons were unique in that they were rooted in both Christianity and Science, and they could argue logically why they believe as they do.
A great video that addresses this, though not specifically to Christianity, is Ben Stein’s documentary “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed”. In this movie, it addresses secular acedemia’s perverted repulsion to any notion of God. Professed atheist scientists have come to the conclusion from their years of research that life simply can not be random and by chance as we are taught. There is too much structure, too much detail and many things that don’t add up; i.e. we are taught that our DNA genome is ever thinning as we evolve, as we become more advanced as a species our genome loses un-needed and un-necessary codons. This raises the question of where the initial genome came from to begin with… though this is often described as a ‘problem to be worked out’ by the science realm.
That said, that raises questions in scientists and science oriented Christian’s minds about our origins. The debate about evolution as a theory of how life began is one that is speculative on both sides. Yet concerning evolution today as a change in gene frequency over time, it is undeniable; it is evidenced by antibiotic resistant bacteria, pesticide resistant plants, etc.
The Scientific Method consists of observation and repeatable experimentation. Creation, by definition, was not observable by anyone within the bounds of this universe. And it is beyond our power to repeat the experiment. Therefore, the whole debate about origins is a philosophical, not scientific, debate. A basic philosophical axiom is that if your foundational assumptions are wrong, then the conclusions drawn from those assumptions are also wrong. Let’s examine the unprovable, foundational assumptions about each philosophy: Evolution states that in the beginning there was nothing, that became something, got itself organized, gave itself life, and then made itself better. Christianity states that in the beginning there was God, who created the world and everything in it in perfect harmony. Then Adam and Eve rebelled, and sin and death entered the world. But, “God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.” John 3:16 If you bbelieve in evolution based on faith, because the beginning is not verifiable. I believe in the God of the Bible based on faith, because the beginning is not verifiable. Which belief system requires the greater faith? I only know of One who there at the beginning. I choose to believe His first hand, written account, instead of placing my faith in the assumptions made by those who were not there at the beginning.