Some Christians think that it is possible to believe in God as creator and in the inspiration of the Book of Genesis and, at the same time, accept the evolutionary explanation of origins. Many of them are insistent that no real problems are caused by adopting this approach: they say that these perspectives on origins simply complement one another. David Hull, a philosopher and evolutionist, has pointed out some serious theological deficiencies with this approach. The occasion was a review which appeared in the journal Nature (8th August 1991, 485-6) of a book which criticised neoDarwinism whilst allowing the possibility of creation by evolution.

Phillip Johnson describes himself as a philosophical theist and a Christian. He is also a Professor of Law at the University of California, Berkeley. He has written a book entitled Darwin on Trial, published in the USA, which expresses concern at naturalistic evolutionary explanations of origins and urges that students should become familiar with the alternative: creation by God. Johnson does not identify himself with the "creationist movement", but he presents the weaknesses of neoDarwinism in a very powerful and effective way. Moreover, he takes a very strong position: that neo-Darwinian evolutionary biology is the fruit of naturalistic philosophy. He does not believe that naturalistic explanations of the origin of living things are adequate. God created: possibly out of nothing, but possibly making use of evolutionary processes. Much of the book is devoted to showing that the case for evolution is not proven and that students need to be aware of the grounds for skepticism. Nevertheless, because he allows himself to be agnostic regarding the alternatives, Johnson has drawn some fire from the opposition.

David Hull has written a stimulating and useful review, and the basic point made can be addressed equally to all who hold a `creation by evolution' position. It is actually a challenging response, because it focuses attention on a major weakness in all forms of `creation by evolution' thinking. The basic point concerns the character of God: what is this God like if he created by evolution? In Hull's words: 

`The problem that biological evolution poses for natural theologians is the sort of God that a Darwinian version of evolution implies.'

Hull directs our attention initially to the Galapagos Islands, where Darwin mused on the life cycles of different organisms. 

`The evolutionary process is rife with happenstance, contingency, incredible waste, death, pain and horror. . . . The queens of a particular species of parasitic ant have only one remarkable adaptation, a serrated appendage which they use to saw off the head of the host queen. To quote Darwin: "I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidae with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of caterpillars". Whatever the God implied by evolutionary theory and the data of natural history may be like, He is not the Protestant God of waste not, want not. He is also not a loving God who cares about His productions. He is not even the awful God portrayed in the book of Job. The God of the Galapagos is careless, wasteful, indifferent, almost diabolical. He is certainly not the sort of God to whom anyone would be inclined to pray.'

The creationist makes a clear distinction in history between God's `very good creation' and `creation in bondage' because of man's rebellion and disobedience. We find this to be the Bible's teaching, and consider it to be essential in order to avoid the charge that God is the author of sin. The theistic evolutionist fraternity present a different view of origins, where the marks of the Edenic curse are always to be found prior to man's appearance on the face of the Earth. Fundamental differences like this must be treated seriously: they are not secondary issues and they must not be side-stepped. Hull is absolutely right in his assessment of this ambiguity in Johnson's position: it is possible to conceive of a divine power creating using evolutionary processes, but something is seriously amiss if we identify this with the God who reveals himself in the Scriptures!

David J. Tyler (1992))

Return to top of page