`Charles Darwin published his Origin of Species in 1859 and the world has never been the same since'. With these words in the November 1992 issue of Evangelicals Now, Donald Macleod, Professor of Systematic Theology in the Free Church of Scotland, introduces a discussion of Darwinism and Christianity. He continues: `overnight ... evolution came to be seen, not only as the master-principle of biology, but as the master-principle of everything from the religion of Israel to the British constitution.'After reviewing the concept of Evolution by natural selection and the `formidable difficulties' that Darwin had to address, Macleod says that `Reformed theology offered a measured response to Darwinism'. He draws heavily on the writings of Warfield and Hodge, particularly the latter's What is Darwinism? (1874).
Responses of Reformed theologians should be of interest to the wider Christian community. Reformed theology embraces the spirit of the Reformation, where every aspect of life is brought to the touchstone of Scripture. Not only must the people of God know what God has to say to them, they must show also a willingness to change - a response of obedience to God's holy Word. A positive view of science has always been part of Reformed thinking: with the proviso that a true scientist is God-centred and does not elevate `scientific truth' so that it becomes independent of Biblical revelation. Since Darwinism made such a dramatic impact on all strata of the social scene, it is natural that Reformed leaders would assess its significance by examining it to the light of God's Word. Four issues raised by such men, and in turn by Macleod, are reviewed below.
1. Darwinian theory does not explain the origin of life. Evolution by natural selection presupposes the existence of life forms engaged in the struggle for survival. The contemporary substitution of `spontaneous generation' for `miraculous creation by God' draws nothing from science. Rather, it is an evidence for the dominance of naturalistic philosophy.
2. Darwinism is inconsistent with the Biblical teaching that organisms reproduce `according to their kind'. This objection is clouded, unfortunately, by difficulties in identifying the Genesis kinds. The earlier ideas about the fixity of species were recognised to be erroneous - the lead here was given by Carl Linnaeus, the creationist pioneer of taxonomy (classification). Despite continuing uncertainty, Reformed thinkers were unwilling to reject the thought that the Genesis kinds are of biological significance. Today, we can say that the Biblical framework for approaching this subject is in no way inconsistent with science. Developments in genetics have tended to confirm rather than discredit the idea that there are boundaries between populations of different groupings of organisms, and we have no reason to believe that one group may gradually mutate into another.
3. Evolutionary explanations can never explain man's higher powers. `Where did his mind come from? What was the progenitor of his self-consciousness and creativity? What contribution does self-denial make to survival?'One problem faced by Darwin and his followers is that our own thought processes cannot be trusted outside areas to do with our own survival as a species. `Would anyone,' asked Darwin, `trust the conviction of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?' Only the Biblical teaching that man is made in the image of God does justice to what we find within ourselves - and only this teaching gives us confidence that the metaphysical, philosophical and moral questions that engage our minds are real and worthy of our attention.
4. Reformed theologians were adamant that Darwinism was atheistic. This is not to say that all advocates of Darwinian evolution are atheists, but that the tendency of this system of thought is atheism. Reformed theology has held that creation requires God's supernatural activity, and that it is purposeful and intelligent. Darwinism denies the supernatural and rejects all thought of meaning and creative design.
Despite these objections, Darwinian thinking went on to become the hallmark of orthodoxy in the academic world and to capture the minds of the Christian community in the form of Theistic Evolution. How could this be? Macleod considers two aspects of this question, and offers a number of suggestions:
Why did Darwinism become widely accepted so quickly?
`The theory matched, at least superficially, the spirit of the age, particularly
its belief in progress'. People were persuaded, not so much by evidence,
but by an ideology which was just what they were looking for.
Why has Darwinism remained the dominant theory of origins?
(a) Because scientists do not like to abandon a theory without replacing
it by something more satisfying. Since there are no realistic alternative
naturalistic theories, and since miraculous creation is not satisfying to
unbelievers (see (b) below), Darwinism continues. `In other words, Darwinism
fills a vacuum'.
(b) Because of the plausibility structures which prevail in Western culture.
-
`The reasons why any particular community believes things are never matters
of pure logic. They are always socially conditioned. . . In our Western
world today, men expect and demand a theory of origins which excludes God.
This is due partly to the fact that we live in a secular society and partly
to the fact that science proceeds on the assumption that there is a naturalistic
explanation for everything. Under such a plausibility structure, Darwinism
has considerable advantages. It has been around for so long that men feel
comfortable with it; and of all the non-theistic theories of origins, it
remains by far the most plausible. It will not disappear, then, until we
see a radical shift in the plausibility structure itself: one which will
dispose men to consider the possibility that God may, after all, have had
something to do with the universe.'
David J. Tyler (1992)
