This reflection comes out of the excitement I had in allowing my mind to get rattled and in allowing it to think out of the mundane. I just stepped out of the Seminar UBS had arranged with The Faraday Institute of Science and Religion. I told myself and also sort of helped my associates to be open-minded on the whole approach on “Creation or Evolution---Do we have to Choose?”
Earlier the question was to choose either one i.e. to take stand for one. But now well meaning Christian Scientist ( for that matter some who are the best in the world) are enabling us to peep into this whole world of scientific developments and then try to make us understand / realise that "the need is for many types of explanations to do justice to the complex phenomenon". In other words the guidance is to look at the Scientific model along with the Ethical, Aesthetic and Theological models; complementary models to give explanations to issues regarding ‘Life.’ (I am not quoting but reflecting on the thoughts we had over here)
So they say, rather than a choosing one, we could see it as complementary models. In this whole process God is definitely not Transcendent, but very Immanent in His Trinitarian being.
My mind had been closed to the whole study of Evolutionary process and I must admit that it was more for the sake of Guarding God (What a foolish statement) than get to the crux of analysing and critically reflecting the findings of the scientific world. I look at some of the new information/learning’s like;
· The whole aspect of understanding science not in its content alone but bringing History into Science and therefore learning from perspective.
· The very fact that God has not just created a small dwelling place called 'earth' but a host of other space- gives room for nuclear reactions to happen.
· The fact that Evolutionary theory can be a paradigm for the explanation as well a link to a world of data is interesting.
· The very fact that matter is reproducible and therefore open for investigation unlocks room for development.
· And that even today species in isolation have potential over time to form new species which will never breed with its original......
The list goes on. So what do we do? The easiest for me would be to dump the whole questions and get back to my comfort zone. But for a university movement like ours to be in a comfort zone I may to have to leave this ministry and get to some groups who will not raise these issues.
Rather today (for some places) or tomorrow (for other cities) as staff we are bound to respond to such questions. The questions will not be on either evolution or creation, but “when well meaning Evangelical scholars opine on the Bio-logos (Theistic Evolution), what is our stand?” So rather than spending our time doing what other movements or organisations can do, as a movement involved among the intelligentsia of our society, let us not evade such questions we need to think, articulate, be open, learn, ask questions; let’s box ourselves out of the boxes. In this way we would formulate theology and become a movement that is relevant to our context.
Three questions that I have in my mind that I would love to hear from the Faraday people and surely our own group:
1. In this whole of Creation & Evolution as complimentary models, how do we account for the fall and redemption?
2. Does evolution go into future (reflecting in the light of the second coming)?
3. Is the whole human race the offspring of Homo divinus?
My desire is to grow not blindly, but to grow knowing the truth. And I believe our Sovereign Lord will guide us as we encounter these twists and turns of life. Let us be open-minded.
We are doing fine and His Grace has been amazingly refreshing in this break.
UBS
2/2010
Comments
I don't know if you have got Denis' book creation or evolution: do we have to choose? and Rodney Holder's just atoms and molecules? We printed out those books with their permission for the delegates. i can ask my colleagues for a copy each if you hvnt got them.
It's a sad thing that many EGF membes aren't open minded to even listen to this kind of view on evolution that they are not brought up with.
Thankyou for your comment. Yes the greatest need is not to accept everything you hear but to be open whereby you can have formulations.
In case those books are available i would be intrested to get a copy each and will pay for the same.
Thankyou.
Its exciting to read your reflections. And yeah keep encouraging our folks to open up our minds. The books are really great and you'd soon receive it.
I guess I'd skip the first question as it's not a matter of few sentences. Only a book can do full justice and one is on its away according to the other posts.
2. Most evolutionary biologists, Christians as well as atheists are convinced that cultural evolution has replaced the evolution of homo sapiens. Denis would say something like which evolution are you talking about? Because we do undergo limited evolution as we adapt to new diseases etc but not at the scale of something like the emergence of new human species! We've crisscrossed the globe and our lives now inter-penetate ie we don't live in isolation anymore. Jesus' command to love our neighbours, even our enemies is a counter to the evolutionary trajectory.
3. As far as the scientific datas are concerned, population genetics suggest something like 1000-10000 founder population for the human race. This may seem to contradict the Genesis 1 picture of a couple if a strong literalism is insisted. In which case we have to grapple with questions like: Does 1 founder couple imply sin is genetically or biologically transmitted? If yes then why not Salvation through Christ also if we say the curse has been reversed?
In which case all humans being descended from Homo Divinus will be in the federal sense, not the biological. Top evangelical OT scholars like Tremper Longman and John Walton will also concur...
The same holds true for apostle Paul's arguments in Romans 5 & 1 Corinthians 15. Insisting the verse literally for 1 Adam will result in total acceptance of Universal salvation for all if you read the text carefully. Also we end up making Paul erroneous for saying something like through the sin of 1 man while it should be through the sin of 1 woman and then man...
Finally, the advice by Richard Swinburne needs to be kept in mind:
that whenever a speaker utters a sentence we must make a distinction between the presupposition of the statement from the assertion he is making in the sentence. the presupposition is whatever held as common knowledge by the people/listeners of that time whilst the assertion is the truth the author is trying to add to the existing sets of beliefs.
The fall of man, I think, has to be understood in term of federal headship. Though each of the first modern men sinned, the biblical writer portrayed the Fall of Man in term of federal headship and put it on Adam. So it is not because of sin being passed on genetically through Adam, but because Adam is the federal head of human race we are all sinners. This sin affects human race physically though and so there is physical death. Redemption will come through Christ alone as each person appropriates Christ work on the cross by faith alone.
Evolution will go into future as well as will not go into future. Developing resistance to swine flu is evolution and we see that happening. So such evolution will happen even in future. But human race developing into other species may never happen; because for speciation to come about in evolutionary biology each species is to live in isolation for a long long period of time… and small changes through, say, mutation accumulates over generations to give rise to new species. For example, A and A separates for a long period of time. And over million of years the first A becomes X; and the second A becomes Y. The process for this speciation can be through mutation and adaptation. But since human society does and will not live in isolation from another society for million of years it is not possible for speciation to arise. So in that sense evolution will not go into future.
NB: Just want to say that leading evangelical figures like J I Packer, John Stott, Billy Graham have openly say that evolution does not have problem with Christian belief.
jeremiah has put in a helpful look at federal headship via cain's wife. indeed if we read the text carefully and go sequentially, claiming cain married his sister by appealing to later verses is not elegant.
indeed u've correctly noted that we can maintain condemnation came through one man and so did salvation. what is at stake here theologically if adam is seen as the federal head and not the biological? i guess we lose nothing. coz salvation through christ is also in the federal sense of a 2nd adam. but of course i'd be interested to know what u think will be the ramifications.
(i jumped to genes to highlight the impossibility of genetic/biological transmission.)
meanwhile, ot scholars have indicated to us adam means man or mankind....
am glad we could have this discussion!
bro sao tunyi
In our extensive use of “Federal Sense” I feel it calls for the very understanding of biblical principles of interpretation; For example, can Salvation mean that what has been accomplished on the cross be accepted in a federal sense? Meaning that there is no need for the individual to come to terms with his predicament because that redemption is for the whole humankind/cosmic/universal salvation not needing any personal conviction?; this is more getting in line with the thinking of the Indian Christian theologians
When John writes “He existed in the beginning with God. Through him all things were made, and apart from him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life brought light to humanity.”- Where do we account for life that God shared to man-the Image of God?
Also I marvel at the beautiful and yet complimentary evolution of mankind as male and female. May be i need to understand how a unicellular being had all these characteristics inbuilt for a wide variety of species that in isolation over time could be so distinct and yet complimentary. Genesis 1 & 2 though may not be taken literally; one cannot overlook the world of biblical world view embedded in them. For the matter of family, I realise many of the principles of marriage would be lost without these two chapters.
Romans 5:18 says, “Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men“ (NIV). I think here we cannot interpret the text as saying that all men physically inherit condemnation from Adam automatically; and also all men inherit righteousness through Christ automatically. I guess it’s fair to say that Adam as the federal head is through whom all are condemned and Christ as the federal head is through whom justification comes for all who will believe, as the following verse makes it clear . In Rom 5: 14 Christ was used as a typology of Adam, though the usage was as a contrast.
I don’t think the text allows us to go down the liberal pathways. So each person needs to come to Christ to be saved.
take for instance the federal headship of adam. u arrive at the same conclusion that salvific effect of Christ has to be universal and that one may need not come to a personal knowledge of Christ.... so true! i was arguing from the logical end in case ppl insist on using adam-christ typology very strongly literally to argue for nothing less than 1 original couple as the only founder of human race. we end up into theological problems of various sorts.
i will not rehearse jeremiah's helpful take here. suffice to say if adam is taken in the generic sense of "mankind" then one take home message will be "i am adam", i chose to disobey god on my own..."
i feel we've to de-anthopomorphise the term "image of God" in the sense that properly speaking, God does not have an image. God is spirit, so says Christ in the recorded writings of the apostle John. it was Logos-the Word which existed in the beginning; the pre-incarnate form of God the Son remains unknown.
the evolution of sex is an interesting topic in evolutionary biology and of which i am not competent to give any remark. suffice to say it's been used by many creationists as arguments against evolution, some of them quite hilarious. i know a little bit intuitively but i can't go on at this point.
However if it's God's word which brings everything to being, then just like a seed or a zygote containing all the instructions needed to actualize over time its potentialities, primordial life starting as a single cell pose no theological problem. The universe came into being. So did life come into being. The Bible does not give us the data here.
lastly, we must not confound the theological message the genesis story in chapters 1 & 2 is telling us with the scientific description of the world. they operate at different levels. we must recall here john calvin's advice that the author of genesis accommodated himself to the limited understanding of the people of that time.
i recommend here John Walton's most excellent The Lost World of Genesis 1 and Stanley Jaki's Genesis 1 Through the Ages.
When we say we must not read Genesis 1 literally, we mean we should use our creative imagination just as the 1st listeners would have. it is pre-scientific.
***********************************
If I say to someone are you thinking with your kidney? It will be taken as an insult. BUT not so the Hebrew during the days of old. Ever wondered how we mis-translate the Bible?
The literal translation of many of the psalms will be:
I worship you Lord with my kidney: (translated as soul or tongue in diff versions).
or God knows my thoughts stored in my belly (innermost thoughts).
The discussion is indeed helping. I am keeping an open mind to see from different perspectives and even sometimes learn, unlearn and relearn. It happens to be the exam preps for us now and so a thorough study to reflect is being hindered.
But I hope to come back soon
1. God created man through non-living thing i.e dust.
2. God created man through non-living thing via evolutionary process.
What advantage is there in preferring 1st model over the second one? I see nothing much.
What disadvantage is there is preferring the second one over the first? Nothing. The advantage in the second one is that it seems to give a more plausible explanation for evil and suffering. Can't explain here how. Theologians like John Haught/John Polinghorne have written on that.