:: Does Theistic Evolution Make Sense? 

Joe Renick

Executive Director

IDnet-NM

Updated January 6, 2008

Theistic evolution is an attempt to reconcile Christian belief in a Creator with Darwin's theory of evolution. The rationale for such an undertaking is simple. If Darwin's theory is true, as science says, and if Creation is true, as the scriptures say, then those who in their own minds can synthesize Genesis and Darwin into a coherent account of biological origins must believe that they have discovered a higher truth.  

This transaction between Genesis and Darwin is worth examining.

The general argument made by theistic evolutionists is that God created the first living organism and then used evolution as the means for creating the rest of life. While there are varying viewpoints among theistic evolutionists as to whether or not this process is directed or not, evolutionists, because of their philosophical commitment to Naturalism, insist as a matter of dogma that the process of evolution is undirected and without purpose. In addition, they hold that the origin of the first living organism occurred as a result of natural causes and was not the work of a transcendent creator.

The Darwinists have it both ways. They give no ground and are quite happy to have the 40 percent of the population that takes the theistic evolution view either on their side or at least out of the battle.

When Darwin first published On the Origin of Species in 1859, it was the scientists, not the clergy that vigorously challenged his theory.  There were two important reasons for the relatively mild reaction on the part of the Anglican church.  First, when the Origin was published evolution was not a new subject to either scientists or the public having been introduced by Erasmus Darwin (grandfather of Charles) in a publication in 1794.  In 1809 in France, Jean-Baptiste Lamarck published his views regarding the inheritance of acquired characteristics.  Then in 1844 in England a very popular work, Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation, was published (anonymously) which put forth a cosmic theory of evolution that involvd all natural systems, not just living things. 

So, when Darwin published the Origins it was only 15 years after Vestiges and all of the controversial aspects of evolution had been thoroughly wrung out.  What was different about Darwin's work was that he proposed a mechanism for evolutionary change - natural selection - and this, along with his extraordinary writing style made him a best seller.

Evolution was "old news" in 1859.  What was of far greater concern to the Christian world in England was the threat of radical liberal theology that began coming out of Germany in mid-19th century. 

But on the positive side, there was actually a subtle theological motivation to accept Darwin’s theory.

A major problem for Christianity (at least in the eyes of some) throughout the centuries has been that of providing a rational explanation for the great pain and suffering experienced by all of God’s creatures. Specifically, how could a loving and personal God allow the horrors of war, disease, famine, and natural disasters to fall on man, His most favored creature?

Darwin’s view of nature provided an interesting perspective regarding this problem. It goes something like this.

God created the heavens and the earth and then life (Darwin’s universal common ancestor?). Unguided, non-purposeful biological evolution carried on from there as part of the created natural order in bringing into existence all animal life and finally, mankind. What purpose would be served through a “hands off” process such as this?

One possibility is that the doctrine of “free will” demanded it. If man was to truly have free will as an essential aspect of his nature then the natural world, also part of God’s creation, must be neutral with respect to that free will treating him with neither favor nor disfavor. Mankind had to be part of the natural world, not an honored guest with special favors and privileges.

 Thus, mankind, as part of the natural world, was subjected to the same pain and suffering as the rest of God’s creatures as a necessity of the Divine Plan. It was not that God could not intervene, it was that the larger plan for mankind and his redemption required that his free will be preserved…even at the cost of great pain and suffering.

Upon closer examination, however, this system of evolution, free will, and suffering can be seen to have its own theological problems. But the purpose here is not to argue the theological merits of this system but rather to simply note that there was and is a theological appeal for theistic evolution.

Free will and suffering aside, in this marriage of Genesis and Darwin, it is Genesis that is the loser. Regardless of the perceived nature of the union, the underlying result is that most, if not all, essential meaning is willingly stripped from the first few chapters of Genesis.

 The credibility of theistic evolution as a hybridized theological-scientific theory of origins rests solidly on a single factor - the existence of convincing scientific evidence that shows that the universal common ancestry descent model of evolution is a reliable description of the history of life. But the only directly observable evidence from which the history of life might be reconstructed is the fossil record. And the well documented features of the fossil record…sudden appearance of fully formed complex animal life, no apparent ancestors, little or no change during tenure on earth, followed by - in the vast majority of cases - extinction… stand hard against universal common ancestry descent.

 Without convincing evidence that universal common ancestry descent is a reliable description of the history of life, Darwin’s hypothesis of natural selection acting on random genetic variation as the driving mechanism of evolution becomes somewhat academic. But given that Darwin’s theory has never progressed beyond the scientific status it had at the end of the nineteenth century - that of a highly speculative hypothesis for which there is little or no direct evidence - it becomes superfluous.

 Theistic evolution does not make sense because there is no convincing evidence for either the “fact” of evolution or its hypothesized mechanism, natural selection. The question then arises: Why would anyone knowingly compromise foundational aspects of their faith to accommodate an unproven model of the history of live and the speculative hypothesis portrayed as its mechanism - especially one with obvious anti-theistic implications?

 As knowledge and understanding of biology increase it would be expected that the evidence for universal common ancestry descent and the efficacy of natural selection would correspondingly increase. Just the opposite is the case. The more we learn about biology, the less sense we are able to make of Darwin and the evolutionary model it supposedly supports.

 Those who hold to theistic evolution are urged to objectively re-examine the evidence and then re-evaluate the legitimacy of theistic evolution as an explanation for the history of life.

 < Back to Essays