There was one point when I was visiting a high school friend who lived at the air base north of town.  Mischa was black and, this should come as no surprise, her family was black too. I remember thinking two things as my little white Scandinavian self sat as a pale spot in a room full of black people for the very first time:

This must be what Mischa feels like all the time!

And

How can my friend and her family be both Christians and Democrats?

So. A wee bit sheltered. Not exactly open minded, but I think there was a lot of love and enough humility to create some room to grow.

I also specifically remember dad preaching from the pulpit Sunday morning against the disastrous fallacy of evolution as the origin of the species.  The crux of his argument was that if evolution is true, then there existed Death before Adam. And if there was Death in the world before Adam and Eve brought it on themselves and all their progeny as a consequence of their disobedience of God’s specific decree to ‘Leave that fruit alone!’, then the healing of that separation between God and Man by the sacrifice made by God’s son was totally invalidated and Jesus Christ’s sojourn on this earth was completely purposeless and we are lost.

How chilling!  How intellectually appealing!  And very compelling to a fourteen year old!  Less compelling now as I realize that no matter my relationship with Jesus, I am still going to die.  Less compelling when I realize that Jesus came to bridge a spiritual gap between me and my Creator (ooh, Creator! Don’t worry, we’re getting to that!), rather than to actually alter the physical changes in my body that will lead to its eventual end.  And definitely less compelling to set up logical absolutes that, upon almost effortless rebuttal, invalidate the firm foundation of my system of religious beliefs.

There is much dissention about Creation versus Evolution as the origin of the species. I believe this is a false dichotomy based on a misapprehension of what evolution actually “means” and I am compelled to do a little more “reverse evangelism” and explain why you can be a Christian (or otherwise monotheistic religious person – I can’t speak for the polytheistic ones with any authority) and “believe in” evolution without anything inside your brain exploding..

I write ‘believe in’ in quotes, because that is not quite the right terminology. You don’t “believe in” facts.  You acknowledge them, you use them, you cite them, you don’t need to “believe in” them.  And they certainly don’t need you to believe in them to be facts. 

And the fact is, the broad diversity of life we see on this planet developed by a process fueled by genetic mutation and natural selection that was first fully described by the English naturalist Charles Darwin in his book On The Origin Of Species in 1859.  This mechanism of “evolution”, or change, has been substantiated over and over again in the fields of paleontology, microbiology, plant biology, zoology, molecular cell biology and every relevant field of biology.  Evolution is an amazingly predictive construct and is so completely and firmly accepted by, embedded in the minds of and used daily within the scientific community that   one science writer entitled a chapter of his book “The End of Evolutionary Biology”.  Not because evolution isn’t a fact, but because there’s really nothing more to prove. 

Unlike physics, there are no “laws” of biology.  The biological correlate of a physical law is a theory.  Most people have no problem accepting Cell Theory, which states that the cell is the basic unit of life.  So, you’re made up of cells that reproduce to make other cells.  Good.  Or there’s the Chromosomal Theory of Inheritance that says that genes are located on chromosomes and the behavior of chromosomes during the cellular activities of sexual reproduction account for observable patterns of inheritance.  Got it.  (Oh, and can we please schedule my genetic testing for the “overbearing” gene?)  So, the Theory of Evolution is not a dubious and unsubstantiated opinion that we can espouse or reject based on mood or religious identity.  No, it’s as close as biology can get to verifiable fact.  If the theory of evolution didn’t work and work reliably, the construct would have phased out of common usage. You just can’t stand upon intellectually precarious paradigms when you are tenuously, yet meticulously!, expanding the borders of biological knowledge.  That’s the way science works.  Of course, scientists are people and wrong ideas can persist longer than they should, but this idea isn’t wrong. It’s real. It’s a fact. And now it’s time to think about what that fact means if you are a religious person of a monotheistic bent.    

There are still a lot of religious people who don’t have what I believe to be the proper response to evolution, which is, “Umm… yes.  So… what’s the problem? Why should this upset me?”  If you are a religious person who thinks there is no way God can be good or real or meaningful if you “believe in” evolution, I’m here to tell you, it’s okay.  Don’t panic.  I believe God is real, I believe God is good, I believe God is a fundamentally meaningful part of my life and all at the same time I am fully convinced that the diversity of life on earth is a product of millions of years (about 4500 million, that is) of natural selection acting on spontaneously occurring genetic variation within individual organisms.

So how can I believe God and science?  Because the existence of God (or god or gods) is something science cannot prove or disprove. Science deals with the material, or natural, and God is in the realm of the spiritual, or supernatural.  So, in our Venn diagram God ∩ Science: 

I believe you don’t have to deny reason or the logic of scientific inquiry to believe in God.  Now, to be a strict Creationist, then, yes, you have to deny reason.  Sorry about that, but that’s the way it is.  But you can believe in God the Creator and be completely unthreatened and totally amazed at the works of his hand through the process of evolution.  Really, you can.  Because science, by its very nature, can say nothing about God: the existence of God, the thoughts of God, the morality of God, the ways of God.  Science says nothing about the purpose of the universe or the purpose of human existence.  Scientists like Stephen Jay Gould have a tendency to extrapolate meaning from the nuts and bolts of evolution.  Scientists who, for various emotional, unemotional, justified and unjustified reasons, dislike and want to discredit religion have a penchant for using evolution to skewer theistic ideas in the gut.  In reality, the fact of evolution, just like the fact of chromosome-based inheritance, makes absolutely no comment on morality or divinity.  It. Just. Is.  You can certainly interpret the process of evolution to suggest there is no meaning to our existence, but that is just as much of an interpretation as believing that the amazing complexity resulting from these simple and natural processes is just another masterful part of God’s plan.

So you see? There are facts and then there are interpretations of the philosophical and moral implications of those facts and the two are not the same thing.  Denying meaning is just as much of an extrapolation beyond facts as is embracing meaning.  In my biased opinion, of course, embracing meaning is a far more fulfilling and hopeful interpretation than the alternative.

Religion, on the other hand, by its very nature can say nothing predictive about the inner workings of the physical world.  Religion can’t reveal to us the mechanisms of mitosis and meiosis.  Religion can’t predict the intermediate forms between terrestrial and aquatic mammals that are present in the fossil record (and they are there!).  Morality and the meaning of life (or lack thereof) are the demesne of religion and philosophy, not science.  Answering questions about why we exist, why we are here, what is good, and what has consequence requires drawing implications from the facts of the natural world.

There are two big problems with clinging to a literal interpretation of the Genesis One story of Creation:

Problem #1: A literal interpretation of the Genesis creation account(s) implies God at best as a weird sense of humor and at worse is… well, a liar.  Geological and chemical evidence strongly point to an old earth.  Paleontology and biology strongly suggest the diversity of life arose over millions of years rather than six days.  The only “scientists” who espouse a literal interpretation of GenOne are Young Earth Creationists who spend their “scientific” careers dogmatically arguing from conclusion to premise.  They deny the validity of the evolutionary process but offer no testable counter theory.  Besides this biblically literal view of the mechanism of creation being, well, wrong, it also implies some distressing things about the Creator.  If Genesis One is a literal accounting of creation rather than a spiritual accounting of the relationship we have with a deity, then that God apparently gets a kick out of planting false (but amazingly consistent!) evidence over the entire planet to trick the creatures he supposedly created as intellectual companions.  Instead of realizing that “God’s invisible qualities – his eternal power and divine nature – have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made…” (Romans 1:20), God’s invisible qualities are specifically NOT revealed by nature, because, in this scenario, nature was created with an utterly false face.  We cannot trust our senses and observations, we must rely on an ancient unscientific historical document as our only link to our Creator.  We cannot trust nature to reveal Truth, we must assume our God is pulling one doozy of a practical joke on us. 

My God is not a God of deception. My God is a God of truth and I reject this scenario.

Problem #2: Refusing to acknowledge the truth and validity of evolutionary theory creates a stumbling block to belief for the scientific community.  Because the proponents of my religion have foolishly drawn this ridiculous line in the sand, an entire population of intelligent people who daily experience the utter intricacy and marvel of nature have a ridiculously obvious and inescapable excuse to (at best) simply deny and even (at worst) openly scorn what I believe is true.  Not because they actually have any personal experience with Christianity; no, they reject the peace and freedom my religion offers because the talking heads for mainstream Christianity willfully and often mockingly continue to deny the validity of a fundamental cornerstone of biology.  Not surprisingly, the scientific community mocks right back. 

I think we can all admit without shame that we don’t know exactly how God thinks.  Jesus certainly wasn’t how God’s people expected God to reveal his promised Savior (hey, where’s that guy’s sword? What’s this blessed are the peacemakers business?  He says we should pay taxes to the oppressive Roman government!?! What the?).  And clearly, evolution is not how God’s people expected God to reveal the origin of the species.  But let me tell you something: “my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the LORD.  As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.”  (Isaiah 55:8, 9)  If you really believe Jesus said, “I am the way and the truth and the life” (John 14:6a) and meant it, then scientifically verifiable fact (which to the best of our efforts and knowledge is truth) must be a revealed aspect of God.  If it doesn’t fit precisely with your preconceptions, perhaps you need to examine and alter your preconceptions and make sure you “do not cause anyone to stumble, whether Jews, Greeks or the church of God – even as I try to please everybody in every way.  For I am not seeking my own good but the good of many, so that they may be saved.” (I Corinthians 10:33)  It’s not about you being right, it’s about salvation.

Religion has its issues with Science, but Science has its issues with Religion.  In response to all the religious repression and oppression of scientific inquiry, Team Science now spends some serious mental and emotional energy on, well, crushing religion.  And evolution, unlike other major biological cornerstones, almost begs to be used to this purpose.  But as I have already noted, the “meaning” of evolution, the spiritual implications of evolution, is not something the mechanistic process of Science is capable of determining.  So, my religious friends, stop denying reason and fact and embrace the minds God gave us.  And my non-religious friends, stop insisting that the fact of evolution denies the existence of Loving, All Powerful Creator.  You may interpret it that way, but it’s still an interpretation.  Let’s not be hateful and obstinate.

Now, for the religious people, I have a few interesting points to allay your fears and calm your spirits.  I admit it still stresses me out on a very fundamental level to unequivocally state that Genesis One is a not a literal account of creation.  I bought Dad’s sermons hook, line and sinker and a little bit of me still sinks to realize that simple straightforward view of God’s power isn’t right in a literal sense.  But when I give that up, I’m not replacing it with something lesser. 

One of the implications of Creationism, and even Intelligent Design, is that God did not create natural processes as sufficient to sustain life.  It may be heart-warming to think of a hands-on Creator who lovingly formed each new species and breathed life into it when its time on this planet had come, but unfortunately that idea has some sticky implications. First of all, if an Act of God is necessary for (that is, is the mechanism of) the appearance of each new species on earth, then what was the purpose for all those species that are now dead and gone, present only in the fossil record?  Does God change his mind a lot? Or did all those creatures displease him?  Did he just need a couple of tries to get it right? And why, again, did he bother making a fossil record that showed distinct links between evolutionarily related species (land creatures with tail fins like fish, the first birds having teeth like reptiles)?  Again, is observable reality just a big hoax?  Well, I don’t think so, so I don’t think I buy this literal GenOne Creation thing.

Second, in this day and age observation of the natural world cannot prove or disprove God because God makes no regular observable interventions in the day-to-day workings of physics, chemistry and biology.*  Whether you believe God made it that way or not, the system we live in runs autonomously down to the submolecular level.  The laws of physics and the workings of genetics are entirely sufficient to maintain life and to generate an amazing variety of it in the face of all sorts of challenges.  Most people find it relatively easy to accept that the world spins on its axis today, this very moment, not because God is pushing it but because of the inherent laws of matter and physics (and I am so not the person to explain physics so this is all you’re getting of that).  Personally, I have no problem believing that every single natural process occurring on earth THIS VERY SECOND is happening without any direct intervention by God.  My guess is you don’t either.  If this is the way God works today, and if God is indeed “the same yesterday, today and forever” (Hebrews 13:8), then why is it hard to believe that this is the way he worked yesterday? And the day before that? And the day before that?  

Some may want to amend their interpretation of Genesis One to say that God created all the founding species in the archeological record and all the subsequent species evolved from them.  Again, if subsequent species can evolve according to natural processes, why couldn’t the original species also be formed by natural processes if God works the same way in the past, present and future?

In light of this, why do you think our God could not in any way be the author of a universe in which life evolved through the same natural material processes that are observable, intact, and sufficient for life to adapt and evolve today?  For an omnipotent omniscient God who exists outside of time, creating the vast complexity of life we see on this planet through a series of incremental steps over a few billion years is certainly not impossible or even improbable.  And why did it have to take so long?  Well, if there is one thing God is not, it’s impatient.  Also, I’m pretty sure his time sense is different than ours (2 Peter 3:8 “With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.”)  I think God’s capacity for amusement is huge. You know how fascinated you are with morphing software, imagine how entertaining it is for God to watch this grand process unfold!

So why doesn’t God intervene more often?  (Gosh, how many books have been written about that subject!)  And what’s the deal with all those random chance mutations?  Well, as the Supreme Being says in Time Bandits, “I think it has something to do with free will.” 

Most of us religious types see God and the evidence of God’s will everywhere we look in this life of strange coincidences and chance meetings.  I, a poor North Dakota girl, met my future husband a thousand miles away from home at an expensive private Christian school in Northeast Oklahoma.  I cluelessly chose to go to Bartlesville Wesleyan College mostly because I didn’t want to stay in Minot and go to Minot State University and the only other college I could think of was the one my dad went to for a year when I was in 4^th grade to finish his ministerial degree after Trinity Bible College in Minot shut down.  I’m not even really sure why he ended up in the Wesleyan denomination; I think it was because the Methodists we grew up with were too liberal.  Joel somehow ended up at BWC because of a disappointing basketball coach at Oklahoma Baptist University even though he and his family were not associated in any way with the Wesleyan church.  So, if you trace it back, kind of random we both ended up there.  Still, I believe God brought us together and I can’t imagine even being married if I hadn’t run into Joel.  I believe God worked through the random chance of our decisions and influences to achieve his purpose in our union. 

“I just can’t believe that something that beautiful just ‘happened’ by random chance,” is often the awed response of a religious person amazed by some intricate wonder of nature.  Oddly, we have no issue accepting that God works through and is revealed by the results of the random chance we see driving historical processes (see Eva + Joel 4ever above), but somehow we cannot accept that God is evidenced by the results of the random chance that drives natural processes?  Chance is chance, whether it’s a missed bus that lets you meet the love of your life or a mutated base pair that increases the accuracy of phototransduction in the retina.

Fundamentally, random chance is necessary for the expression of free will. I have said before that God is pro-choice; if nothing else, that is what the events of the Garden of Eden tell us. God created us to be able to choose him, to choose right, to choose obedience or disobedience.  If chance does not exist, then determinism remains.  Why would such a creative Creator make our lives unalterably set in stone when his stated desire is to be freely chosen?  The inner workings of nature, and specifically the lessons of quantum physics**, show that random chance plays an inescapably fundamental role in natural history, just as it does in human history. 

Just as a side note, most often we think of mutations as bad (well, except when X-men are concerned).  But as we’ve seen quite dramatically from the rising tide of antibiotic resistance in bacteria (resulting from mutations and subsequent natural selection in response to environmental pressure), mutations can verifiably enhance the success of an organism in the face of life-threatening conditions.  Also, the rates of mutation measured experimentally are more than sufficient to account for the rate of change necessary to create the observable fossil record (citation).  Just to reiterate, there are many many experiments and entire journals full of evidence of the validity and predictive value of evolutionary theory.  The peer review process for publishing scientific work is fairly rigorous and, while at times political, over time tends to result in publication of accurate and reliable data.  If the theory of evolution could be easily toppled, we would have seen it on the front pages of Science and Nature years ago because scientists LOVE toppling old paradigms.  It means grant money!  Notoriety!  Fame in the nerd community, once notoriety has subsided!  Scientifically, the idea of evolution, like the idea of chromosomal inheritance, is not in question (unless you work for the Institute for Creation Research, which seems to do no actual research but primarily critiques published experimentation done elsewhere without offering any mechanistic alternatives).

So IN CONCLUSION, I firmly believe it is time for the Christian community to accept and embrace evolutionary theory just as we have firmly embraced and accepted the sun-centered solar system (a big problem for the Catholic church in the early 1600s because biblically the earth isn’t supposed to move, the sun is, not vice versa).  Just because the Bible is not a scientific document that is literally true in every instance, it is still possible to believe in the existence of absolutes, of right and wrong.  Augustine wrote about this issue 400 years after the birth of Christ and he said (much more cleverly and succinctly than me):

It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation.   

And:

With the scriptures it is a matter of treating about the faith. For that reason, as I have noted repeatedly, if anyone, not understanding the mode of divine eloquence, should find something about these matters [about the physical universe] in our books, or hear of the same from those books, of such a kind that it seems to be at variance with the perceptions of his own rational faculties, let him believe that these other things are in no way necessary to the admonitions or accounts or predictions of the scriptures. In short, it must be said that our authors knew the truth about the nature of the skies, but it was not the intention of the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, to teach men anything that would not be of use to them for their salvation.

I don’t know why I wrote this massive blog. Augustine already said it all with all the authority of THE Saint Augustine! 

So. Let God not be mocked through our entrenched misperceptions.  Your God may be the God of the Tower of Babel and scared of what man can accomplish, but my God isn’t scared of us or what we think or discover.  And as we perceive Reality more precisely, we step closer to the mind of God. 

Also, IN CONCLUSION, to my scientific friends, don’t make fun of me for being religious.  I am fond of facts as well.  I am actually a fairly rational creature (I think even my husband will agree to that!) and I am convinced in my heart of hearts of the existence of my God.  I think this conviction makes me a better person and gives me a life of greater meaning and purpose.  I would love to share that with you, but as I respect your right of choice of your own views, I ask that you respect mine.  And remember, the tool of science expands knowledge of the material world, not the spiritual realm.

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist; that the soul should be joined to the body, and that we should have no soul; that the world should be created, and that is should not be created…  Blaise Pascal

IN FINAL CONCLUSION: Millions of people can be wrong, but then again sometimes they can be right.

This blog is inspired and based in large part on Kenneth R. Miller’s book Finding Darwin’s God. So if you want to go to the source for this, please please read this book!

---

*I admit, I do believe in miracles, which are observable – but extremely contentious! – interventions of God, but they are not regular and thus are not part of ordinary natural function and cannot be reproduced in a lab) and GOSH you can’t expect me to be perfectly logical all the time, can you?!?

**The Heisenburg uncertainty principle specifically shows there is a fundamental unknown quantity to the universe, which means there are limits to our knowledge. If we cannot strictly state the lowest level of molecular activity in a set of circumstances (we have to use probabilities instead, which are accurate but not precise) then uncertainly and a degree of randomness is a fundamental part of this somewhat ordered universe.