Christianity and the Evolution Controversy

Christianity and the Evolution Controversy
By William E. Hull, Research Professor
Samford University, Birmingham, AL

Edward Osborne Wilson may well be Alabama`s most distinguished living scientist. A biology teacher atHarvard University since 1956, he quickly ascended to the highest ranks of that prestigious faculty where he continues to serve as University Research Professor. The author of more than twenty books and the recipient of more than thirty honorary degrees, Wilson has received almost every scholarly award, recognition, and mem­bership that the academy can bestow. A world-famous entomologist, the acknowledged father of biodiversity, a leading conservationist and environmental activist, he overcame the partial loss of both sight and hearing in his youth to become what Time magazine hailed as one of the twenty-five most influential people in America.

 

The native son returned home a few days ago and time spent together reminded me of the many things we share in common. Both of us were born on the south side of Birmingham only a few months apart. Both of us were raised as Southern Baptists by families with deep roots in that denomination. We both attended the University of Alabama at the same time where we both majored in biology. But then our paths diverged significantly even though we both went on to pursue an academic career. For Wilson, science provided the impetus to abandon his childhood faith¹ whereas, for me, it offered a challenge to mature my very similar childhood faith. Now, a half-century later, we find ourselves at opposite ends of the theological spectrum in our understanding of both natu­ral and supernatural reality.

The two of us would agree that these differences frame one of the most pivotal debates of our time, that between science and religion over the issue of Darwinian evolu­tion. On every hand, media reports on the culture wars have us girding for a fight to the finish between scientism and creationism. Just as the Scopes Trial of 1925 publicly embarrassed Evangelical Protestantism for decades,² so we are in danger of exposing the Christian faith to unneces­sary ridicule unless we learn how to contribute with intel­ligence and insight to what has become an increasingly acrimonious discussion. Since Wilson is an attractive, articulate, and aggressive advocate of the secular alterna­tive, let us choose him as our dialogue partner in shaping a strategy for dealing with this bitterly contested agenda.

I.

We begin with a summary of Wilson`s views on sci- ence and religion. To him, all reality is ultimately physical, with living matter in the domain of biology subject to the laws of chemistry and physics. This means that human nature is the result of material processes, even in the formation of our religious sentiments and moral instincts. In other words, we are "self-assembled¹¹³ rather than God-assembled. The more science discovers about how genetics really work, the less we need theological explanations of our origins rooted in ancient scripture and church doctrine. Therefore, science and religion should not be viewed as coexisting in separate spheres, the former to explain the physical and the latter to explain the spiritual. Rather, modern science is now ready to replace religion as the unified source of all knowledge.⁴ Such views are often referred to as scientific naturalism or secular humanism.

But if God is not the ultimate cause of the human condition, then how did we become what we are today? The answer is self-evident to Wilson: by genetic evo­lution. Which is why he has become such a vigorous defender of Darwinism which teaches that we evolved by an autonomous process of development determined, not by divine purpose, but by random mutations resulting from natural selection over millions of years. This means that humanity is neither the center nor the crown of cre­ation but is only one of many species in the biosphere, all of them interdependent on the others. The notion that God fashioned us in his image is a prehistoric self-image of humanity that must be discarded because of the firmly established fact of evolution accepted unanimously by the world`s leading biologists.⁵

So certain is Wilson of the sweeping significance of Darwinism for both science and religion that he is dis­mayed by recent polls showing that half of Americans do not believe in evolution by natural selection or any other means. Instead, many campaign vigorously on behalf of theories such as Intelligent Design for which, as Wilson sees it, "there is no evidence, no theory, and no criteria for proof that even marginally might pass for science.¹¹⁶ To counterattack this foolishness, he recently edited the four key books of Charles Darwin for republication in a single volume to which he contributed a general introduction and an afterword contending for their enduring relevance despite the continuing attacks of religion.? Driving this unabashed advocacy of evolution is a passionate con­viction that scientific humanism is "the only worldview compatible with science`s growing knowledge of the realworld and the laws of nature."⁸

Lest all of this sound like hostility toward religion by its cultured despisers, Wilson is quick to concede that faith once played an important role in human history. It gave us an inspiring religious epic, sponsored the arts, and fostered altruism by codifying our highest values as moral imperatives. Indeed, science was not ready to replace religion as the ultimate arbiter of reality until its methodology was established by the Enlightenment of the eighteenth century. But now that science has grasped the controlling clue of evolution by natural selection, it is time for religion to retire and give it full sway to secular­ize the human story. After all, what science claims that evolution was able to achieve by blind chance is every bit as amazing as what religion claims that God was able to achieve by divine creation.

I have sought in as few words as possible to present a fair and balanced summary of the views of a leading sci­entist in order to illustrate the depth of the challenge that religion faces in the contentious debate over evolution. But before we respond it may be well to let Wilson speak for himself.

I had been raised a Southern Baptist, laid backward under the water on the sturdy arm of a pastor, been born again. I knew the healing power of redemption. Faith, hope, and charity were in my bones, and with millions of others I knew that my savior Jesus Christ would grant me eternal life…. But now at college . .. I chose to doubt…. most of all [because] Baptist theology made no provision for evolution. The bibli­cal authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were really privy to the thoughts of God? Might the pastors of my childhood, good and loving men though they were, be mistaken? It was all too much, and freedom was ever so sweet. I drifted away from the church, not definitively agnos­tic or atheistic, just Baptist no more.~

II.

 

The first is Wilson`s formulation of the fundamental issue as a choice between the transcendentalism of religion and the empiricism of science. He uses these categories to contrast the two worldviews as belonging to oppos­ing camps. Those in the former are idealists while those in the latter are realists. The former reason deductively from general principles while the latter reason inductively from specific facts. The former are supernaturalists who want to escape from this world while the latter are natu­ralists who want to care for this world. In religion, the chain of causation begins with ought and runs downward to make absolute claims based on commandments, while in science the chain of causation begins with is and runs upward to make relative choices based on innate feel­ings and historical experience. For the former, reality is ultimately spiritual while, for the latter, it is ultimately physical. So understood by Wilson, the stakes could not be higher: "The choice between transcendentalism and empiricism will be the coming century`s version of the struggle for men`s souls."¹⁰

While some of these distinctions may be valid in other religions, they hardly capture the uniqueness of Christianity. Jesus ministered to a people looking for their cherished hope of the Kingdom of God to come "top-down" in supernatural fashion from the heavens, but he taught that it would come mysteriously "from below" like the seed growing under their feet (Mk 4:1-34). The only way it could be observed was inductively, not in exter­nal signs and wonders but in the quality of relationships between his followers (Lk 17:20-21). By the time that the Gospel of John was written, Wilson`s split between transcendentalism and empiricism had been overcome in the affirmation that the eternal Logos was embodied in a flesh-and-blood life that entered fully into the par­ticularity of human existence (Jn 1:14). As First John put it, the most transcendent realities in life were heard with our ears, seen with our eyes, and handled with our hands (1 Jn 1:1), which is about as empirical a claim as a first century writer could make! No wonder William Temple called Christianity "the most materialistic of all great reli­gions."<sup>11</sup> So I would counter that the Christian doctrine of incarnation overcomes the necessary dualism between spirit and matter central to Wilson`s understanding.

The second move that Wilson makes is to create an unbridgeable gap between body and soul, the former in the domain of science and the latter in the domain of religion. Thus if religious experiences as subjective as affection or mysticism can be given a biological expla­nation rooted in genetic history or brain circuitry, then science is entitled to claim them as its own. We have long known the impact of hormones such as testosterone on personality traits, but researchers are now suggesting that neurotransmitters such as dopamine, serotonin, and oxy­tocin are responsible for some of our deepest emotional attitudes.¹² Obviously Wilson thinks that it is only a mat­ter of time until science discovers a physical rather than a metaphysical explanation for everything that we feel, including even the religious impulse itself. 13

Would such an achievement give science an unquali­fied victory over religion, confirming the old retort that it`s not God but our glands that prompt us to be pious? Consider for a moment the ancient biblical understand­ing of the self as a unity comprising both body and soul rather than a duality setting the two in opposition as does Wilson. According to the creation account (Gen 2:7), we are not, as the Greeks supposed, an inward spiritual soul trapped in an outward physical body. Rather, we are, in the totality of our being, an indivisible body-soul so that all of our sensations, volitions, and cognitions belong to the whole. ¹⁴ In that case it would be normal for the body to reflect the life of the spirit and, conversely, for the spir­it to reflect the life of the body. Of course Wilson might reject this ancient Hebrew psychology as nothing more than "Iron Age folk knowledge,"¹⁵ but this wholistic understanding of the physical and spiritual aspects of life as profoundly integrating and reciprocating may point to what psychosomatic medicine is just beginning to teach us. I would be neither surprised nor dismayed if one day science were able to show us that everything we experi­ence in our spirit is implanted in our body and religion were able to show us that everything we experience in our body is implanted in our spirit.

A third dichotomy undergirding Wilson`s position is his characterization of religion as static and of science as dynamic. As regards the former, its foundations are fro­zen in a collection of ancient scriptures that cannot be revised, replaced, or enlarged. The interpretation of these writings long ago hardened into dogma that must be accepted as taught by church authorities. The end result, especially for Baptists, is a fundamentalism that absolu­tizes the convictions of a few charismatic leaders on threat of exclusion: agree or get out! By contrast, science is a venture of unending discovery. Its every hypothesis must be rigorously tested and immediately discarded if not ver­ified by objective research. This difference was evident in the long journey of Darwin himself. At the outset, he was "quite orthodox," often quoting the Bible to settle points of morality. But gradually he shed his blind faith which, as Wilson puts it, "gave him the intellectual fearlessness to explore human evolution wherever logic and evidence took him." 16

The problem is that this depiction misses the whole point of biblical religion. As regards creation, it began in Genesis as a gradual sequence in six stages and continued throughout the Old Testament as an unending struggle against chaos, causing Jesus to say, "My Father is work­ing still, and I also am working" (Jn 5:17). That work will not be finished until the creation is "set free from its bondage to decay and obtain the glorious liberty of the children of God" (Rom 8:21). Indeed, the whole goal of biblical history is "a new heaven and a new earth" (Rev 21:1) where the order and harmony of the physical realm will be in every way equal to that of the spiritual realm. As regards adherence to brittle dogma, there is no way to understand the prophets of the Old Testament, the Jesus of the gospels, or the Paul of the epistles without viewing them as radical reformers intent on shattering the reli­gious status quo. As regards Baptist fundamentalism, it is a pity that the young Wilson left the Baptist fold before learning that our movement emerged out of the left wing of the Reformation as a cry for freedom from the stric­tures of the established church.

In seeking to overcome these three dualities in Wilson`s argument, I am not attempting to correct his scientific views, which I am hardly competent to do, but rather to offer him a different understanding of religion which lies at the heart of biblical faith. Without these correc­tions the debate is over before it begins. I have no inter­est in defending the kind of religion that he attacks. But if Wilson is open to consider the perspectives advanced here, the evidence for which is far more extensive than I could mention, then he might realize that there is a valid understanding of religion that is empirical, wholistic, and dynamic in nature, which religion would not only permit but encourage the full exercise of his scientific genius. As matters now stand, Wilson has framed the issues in such a way that to be a good believer is, in the nature of the case, to be a bad scientist, which I am very sure is not the true scandal of the gospel.

III.

But when he talks about religion, no such selectivity is at work. While I would not say that he picks the worst possible examples of religious life, his highly generalized descriptions are typical of grass-roots folk religion that might fairly be called "lowest common denominator." In other words, when discussing science he talks about its providers but when discussing religion he talks about its consumers. But what if we leveled the playing field? There are more than 300,000 Christian clergy in America, some 5,000 of whom may meet Wilson`s test of being "statured," most of them teaching in universities or theologi­cal schools. If Wilson limited his sample of theologians to that highly elitist group, as he does with scientists, a very different picture of religion would emerge, one far more compatible with science than his writings suggest.

Let me illustrate by choosing an example dear to Wilson`s heart. One of the things that repulses him the most about religion is its destructive side, its tendency to demonize those who differ and resort to aggres
ion in the name of God. Again and again he laments the union of religion and tribalism that gives birth to bigotry and violence. Indeed, he is not sure that a rapprochement between science and religion is either possible or desir­able because "there is something deep in religious belief that divides people and amplifies societal conflict."<sup>18</sup> As best I can tell, that sweeping generalization does not describe a single member of the American Academy of Religion, the closest counterpart to Wilson`s "statured" scientists. Instead, the leaders of religion are united in condemning and combating every form of religious aggression, as Wilson could easily verify by stepping next door to observe the work of the Harvard Divinity School faculty.¹⁹

The point, of course, is that any great human endeav­or can easily be hijacked, especially a voluntary move­ment like religion in a country where freedom of belief is so jealously guarded. I deplore the corruption of religion every bit as much as Wilson does and have spent as many years as he has seeking to expose those who would manip­ulate it for unworthy purposes. But it does not help to be told that the problem is with my religion rather than with those false shepherds who break in to fleece the sheep (Ezek 34:1-16; Jn 10:7-18). After all, science can be hijacked as well. Scientists split the atom to unleash nuclear energy, but I do not condemn them for incinerat­ing whole cities. Scientists developed the chemicals and pesticides needed by modern industry and agriculture, but I do not blame them for poisoning so many of our waterways. Some scientists compromised their objectivity in accepting lavish funding for their research from major pharmaceutical companies, but I do not stereotype all scientists as pawns of big business. There will always be charlatans in the laboratory as well as in the pulpit, as the recent scandal over cloning in South Korea illustrates. The need is not for science and religion to find fault with each other but for both to do everything possible to keep their respective houses in order so as to offer their best for the benefit of the other.

To that end, what can we do to make our church a more welcoming place for scientists? We can begin by cultivating a faith unafraid of fact; a faith willing to think, to question, even to doubt; a faith that does not have all of the answers but is trying to ask the right questions. We can recover a robust doctrine of creation that celebrates each new discovery of its wondrous workings and man­dates its perpetual care as a fit habitat for all that lives upon it. We can rid our relation