Meeting the challenge of the Darwinian worldview

sn't it strange how different people interpret the same basic facts! For example, take the subject of the origin of man - some say that man was created by God directly from the dust of the ground, others maintain that `science has delivered some fearful blows' to this picture by establishing man's ancestry from ape-like animals, whereas yet others say that God created using the process of evolution. This article seeks to contribute to the discussion by linking these conflicting interpretations with incompatible worldviews.

For many years, Christians have been invited to accept that a sharp distinction can be made between evolutionary theory (which is science) and evolutionism (which is philosophy). It has been suggested that Christians can accept the science without compromising with the philosophy - a position popularly known as `theistic evolution'. Whilst this approach has attracted many influential supporters, it has never succeeded in building confidence in handling the early chapters of Genesis. Ordinary Christians still struggle with questions about the historicity of Adam and the entrance of sin to the world, the effects of the Edenic curse, the extent of the Flood and the impact of Babel on world history.

There is also the practical problem of being able to distinguish between science and philosophy. For example, are evolutionary reconstructions of human cultural development the findings of science or the fruits of evolutionism? In the minds of many non-Christian evolutionists, there is no sharp distinction to be made - they consider that their scientific discoveries drive their evolutionary worldview.

A recent review article by Colin Tudge in New Scientist (20 February 1993, page 43), provides an example of the way evolutionary science can constrain philosophical and religious thinking. 

`The Jewish, Christian and Islamic religions - the three great influences of the West - are founded in the notion that human beings are special. The idea that God created us makes us no more special than all the other creatures he created. But God made us in his image, which makes us very special because the same is not true of dogs and oak trees. The supreme conceit of these religions is the suggestion that the whole thing, the entire universe, was created as a stage for us, the pinnacle of creation.

`Science has delivered some fearful blows to that simple picture during the past 200 years. Many believe (although I do not) that there is nothing left of these great religions worth rescuing. The blows gathered strength in the 18th Century, and were delivered with terrible force by Charles Darwin in the 19th Century. He showed beyond reasonable doubt that all living creatures had evolved and - a crucial point that is often glided over - that any one species could diverge to give rise to many species. In 1871 he emphasised the final point in his Descent of Man: that human beings were very much a part of this evolutionary process'. 

If large-scale evolutionary change has occurred, it is not possible to view any animal or plant as a `finished' product. Man, in particular, cannot be regarded as `specially created' - for he is himself a product of evolution and is in the process of evolving into something different.

The fundamental weakness with this analysis, and others of its kind, is that it has a false view of science. It is mistaken to argue that science favours or drives a particular philosophical perspective. Rather, it is the other way round: philosophy drives science! What we are seeing is the emergence of a worldview which denies God any place in creation or in upholding the world - and which uses science as a tool to support its position.

Phillip Johnson, author of the book Darwin on trial (1991), has published an essay entitled What is Darwinism? (November, 1992). He comments on the way the term `science' is used by Darwinists: 

`Darwinists assume as a matter of first principle that the history of the cosmos and its life forms is fully explicable on naturalistic principles. This reflects a philosophical doctrine called scientific naturalism, which is said to be a necessary consequence of the inherent limitations of science. What scientific naturalism does, however, is to transform the limitations of science into limitations on reality, in the interest of maximising the explanatory power of science and its practitioners. It is, of course, entirely possible to study organisms scientifically on the premise that they were all created by God, just as scientists study aeroplanes and even works of art without denying that these objects are intelligently designed. The problem with allowing God a role in the history of life is not that science would cease, but rather that scientists would have to acknowledge the existence of something important which is outside the boundaries of natural science. For scientists who want to be able to explain everything -- and "theories of everything" are now openly anticipated in the scientific literature -- this is an intolerable possibility.'

Johnson makes it clear that science operates within a philosophical worldview. If this is so, the apologetic stance of theistic evolutionists is completely undermined. Their arguments will be found unconvincing and confusing. `Science' must not be assigned an impartial role which transcends philosophy. The underlying naturalism of evolutionary theories must be recognised. If science is not built on a solid foundation of biblical truth, the seeds sown of unbelief and rejection of revelation will yield a terrible harvest.

If theistic evolution is to survive as an understanding of origins, it must start with revelation and establish a framework of Christian philosophy. From this, the principles of scientific research on origins should be developed. Instead of proceeding along these lines, theistic evolutionists have appealed to the concept of `complementarity' - arguing that science and theology relate to different domains of knowledge. They proceed to suggest that evolution and creation are the complementary, not contradictory, explanations of origins emerging from these different domains. This is not a recipe for the integration of knowledge, but its compartmentalisation. It has a false view of science, because it does not address the philosophical roots of science. It has a false view of theology, because it does not acknowledge the way God has revealed himself in history - it is important that Adam and Eve were our first parents, that there was a Fall into sin, that the world today is not as it came from God's hands, and so on. Historical realities are the common property of science and theology, and do not provide the right context for applying the concept of complementarity.

Are the differences between Christians of peripheral interest? Is this fighting among ourselves a great distraction from the work of the kingdom? The discussion above has sought to show the contrary - we are actually concerned with issues affecting the fundamental truths of Christianity. The motivation for writing is not to aggravate division, but to warn Christian brothers and sisters of the dangers of imbibing an ungodly worldview. It is written with the conviction that the teaching of theistic evolution weakens Christians and makes them liable to stumble.

The issues addressed here are serious: in different ways they affect scientists, Christian leaders, teachers, parents and students. There can only be one way forward: a resolution to hear God speaking - through the Scriptures and in dependence on our teacher, the Holy Spirit.

David J. Tyler (1993) 

Return to top of page