Ethical implications of God using Evolution

Faith & Science Conversation
61

Thanks @MOls - I appreciate your understanding and empathy. Your words are kind and kindness is always meaningful & refreshing. The experience you and others perceive has indeed been unsettling … but God will hold me through this. I hope to come out the other side more enlightened - by the Holy Spirit.

If you and others reading can indulge me in a generalised rant though … I still grieve that God didn’t give any clues to evolution explicitly in the Bible. That said, I remain very intrigued by an earlier idea proposed by @Marshall way back in this thread (around post 14) that maybe there were such clues. I want to believe it (still not being a fan of evolution as outlined) … but the bits I’ve read about Hebrew grammar/syntax would maybe disagree with this being possible? But then, maybe not? :thinking: I would love if someone wanted to expand on this … but before you do - please consider what I say below.

Connected to this line of thinking - that maybe the Bible did indeed give clues to evolution, in listening to Peter Enn’s Inspiration and Incarnation (via audio book) I’ve been hearing today how Paul interpreted scripture using methods common in what was called the second temple era (the time between second temple construction and destruction). For example, how Paul spoke about Jesus being the seed of Abraham actually capitalised on ambiguity in the Hebrew language where the original word for seed used in Genesis could be singular or plural but was generally understood to be plural (applying to many people, eg Abraham’s seed) but Paul uses it in the singular - Jesus was the singular, special seed of Abraham. As if to intensify the word play, Paul then expands his analogy out again to also apply to us - who are in Jesus.

Hermeneutically what Paul did was a no no. It was naughty. And he almost certainly knew what he was saying wasn’t the original meaning of the language in the scriptures in Genesis where that word seed was used. Paul whoever, as we know, was a pretty top notch bible scholar of his day, a Pharisee of Pharisees. Yet he handled the Holy scriptures in this way. He created, by the ‘inspiration’ of the Holy Spirit - new meaning where meaning had not been before.

Treading carefully forward then … by this line of logic - could we not actually make Genesis 1 fit with science? I suppose we could do all kinds of tricks and flips using the method Paul did … but out of all the tricks and flips available to us by using this line of reasoning … syncing Genesis 1 with actual reality would seem like a pretty noble and or desirable one. It would land us on some solid ground. Other flips and tricks might land us on our necks with a broken nine or two. But not this flip. Solid ground - like those Tokyo Gymnasts we’re all gonna be in awe of later this year at the Olympics.

If it was unnamed scholars holed up somewhere in Babylon whom God used to bring forth the Old Testament - the poor souls after the shock and trauma of exile were desperate to find meaning and who felt lost after being thrust from the home land they new and felt comfortable it - if it was people in this desperate position who God actually used to bring us the Scriptures are there not parallels for how we Christians today feel disoriented and lost trying to understand how science is so desperately ‘other’ to the scriptures. Our backs are up against the wall - for people like me, nothing makes sense anymore. Crisis town. But just as with those exiles … could not the Holy Spirit guide us to compile or by His inspiration ‘reinterpret’ Genesis to accord with truth as the Spirit of truth? The Lord of truth just as Jesus was and is Lord of the Sabbath. Seems like something the Holy Spirit would do … and it would add to the mysterious grandeur of Genesis (just saying I’ve been listening to Kalopsia (Original Mix Edit) and now Cafe Del Mar (DeadMau5 edit) while writing this - feels, special - maybe even spiritual somehow. Try reading this while listening to those).

Anyway, I’ll put forward what I’m thinking expand using that logic described … I can see how Genesis 1 could indeed say ‘the earth produced’ (eg evolution) as did the sea as @Marshall said … and I can say God hovering over the waters was the start of life in those waters as I’ve read somewhere else and I can say that the tiny gap of ambiguity in the language of Day 4 can mean that God meant the stars were already there and he just ‘set’ them in their fixed place as I’ve also read elsewhere. Things begin to fit together this way. What of plants being around before animals? Well, my limited research of the first cells has shown me that these cells more or less did turn into the cells that formed the first basic plants. I can recompile that. So we have a God who brooded over the earth and formed life by his mere presence - his presence ordered the chaos into life (La Guitarra by Orjan Nislen on the music now - go my Playlist, go God?). God formed life - with the intention of being life. Death is not what God wanted but it was there. Pain was not felt for millennia. Is somehow the experience of pain connected to spiritual death? I don’t know as the timeline would most certainly not fit death being introduced by man that way - as pain far far pre-existed Adam. Unless we get real tricky and say in the same way Jesus was the lamb slain before the foundation of the world - Adam’s sin and associated death was also present at the foundation or not long after the foundation of the world. Speaking to eternal realities in a deep spiritual way, somehow?

I’ll leave my analysis there and jump back into an earlier edit now … hope it’s not to long this post but it feels a bit ground breaking for me. Bear with its longness :pray:

All that said, I kind of know this is not what Genesis 1 originally meant - I’m making it say what I want it to - forcing the text and capitalising on pockets of ambiguity. But then, the apostles Matthew and Paul did the very same thing speaking of scriptures in the Old Testament… to sound a little repetitive hear … would not the Holy Spirit speaking of Christ (like Matthew and Paul very much were) through whom all things were made allow such an interpretation rather than having to settle for the immensely sad and desperately disappointing “God didn’t reveal it to them because they wouldn’t have understood and there is no way Genesis 1 can be reconciled with actual fact”.

I’m not naive or arrogant enough to suggest I’m the first person to put this view forward - I’m sure - I know - others would have. It would be interesting to read more about specifically that if anyone knows any sources?? (or wants to just address it).

I know I’m jumping around in my thoughts a bit here … but it’s an interesting and helpful experience for me. And nice to have people supporting and helping the process - hopefully, we are all being helped through it … certainly it’s helping me :slight_smile:

62

Wow! Spiritual experience right now
I know these seem a little out there and respect people’s skeptism - heck, look how skeptical
i look above in my posts. But it’s all been pretty raw honesty … and I think God is attracted to that.

Anyway … the last song that came up on my playlist as I was finishing up my previous post was Faces (Ben Gold Remix) … I tingled all over as I sensed something and heard a few of the words … and then looked the words up

Face a sky
Face a wind that blows to me
Face a world
Face a life’s reality
Face a dream
Face a time that goes to haste
Face a clock
Never let this run to waste
Face to me
Never look behind to past
Face a hope
Face a thing that could now last
Many faces gone to place
Sun is blinding, world defining
Face the light
For me to see your eyes
Face the world
Face the star
Face a world without a war
Face the pain
Face the pressure and the strain
Face the case
Face the leaders of…

Me now: Wow. Yeah, A few tears. Don’t often get these experiences and got to grab them with precious gusto when they do come along. On a very personal level, those words felt like God was speaking those to me! In kindness, in love - and how relevant are those particular words!!

It could be coincidence… but a pretty deep one. I’m going to take it as God, my God who loves me - and I know he does. God by His Spirit speaking to me in my anguish here. And this deeply reminds me of the Psalms - the struggles therein … which makes me think of struggle and life … which makes me think of evolution… which makes me now think of God just a little differently. I feel he is helping me work this out. By his grace - his power - I can do it.
Ah, another song just now as I’m editing - Sing2Me by Thomas Gold. Yes God!

Father - thank you and please*keep speaking to me and to your people. Help us break through, to know you - to see you and see your face

Note: I’m pretty much a nobody, just some guy in Adelaide, Australia - not trying to big notemyself here, don’t care about that. Just sharing, cathartically but also in the audience of God’s people - what I feel is His grace to me … thank you Lord

7 Likes
63

Sitting here, reflecting, in awe somewhat and another song comes on … this one I’ve always felt has captured something of the terror I suppose of sin coming into the world - it’s called
Apple (Marcus Schossow Remix) by Sander Van Doorn

1 Like
64

Here’s something to think of as well.

We all agree that God cares for his creation. This is rhetorical by the way and not a serious question I have just feel like it helps focus a bit on the issue of god and his creation.

Who does God care for more?

The plant or the mouse that eat it’s?
The mouse or the snake that eats it?
The snake or the hawk that eats it?
Once you decide which one God likes the most does he still not say we as humans are worth many birds in the eyes of God?

2 Likes
65

What would be the ethical implications of God NOT using evolution in its broadest application, i.e. what stuff does left to its own devices? What would it mean about God if He had to intervene, beyond grounding being, to make anything work, but hid it completely?

66

Hi again Christopher,
thank you for sharing your journey with us, it is very encouraging to read about all the thinking you are doing.

I will write more later…as I only have a few minutes right now. At church today we took communion and sang the hymn, “When I Survey The Wonderful Cross” I was thinking about you and your questions then, and thought: We also know that God did not spare Himself from suffering and death. But He went through it and conquered it for us, because He loves us that much. And as parents we get a glimpse into the depth of that love that would allow us to feel pain for our children and our desire to protect them, and to our willingness to suffer for them if needed.

5 Likes
67

Praise God!

I think there are clues. @Marshall outlined a few. The ones I find useful are the metaphors of ha’adam (“the man”) as archetype and the human journey from childhood to maturity. I also find clues of the human evolutionary journey in the emphasis on language, morality, and relationship in early Genesis. More on that later.

A lot of your objections come down to “Why would God do it this way?” One way of answering would be to point to Isaiah 55, “My thoughts are not your thoughts … As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.” Another way of answering is along the lines of something I said in a recent episode/post.

Proverbs 2 encourages us to search for understanding as for hidden treasure, with the promise that “then you will understand the fear of the Lord and find the knowledge of God.” If the evidence for God were obvious, we would take it as much for granted as gravity, and faith would cease to exist. Blaise Pascal pointed out 350 years ago that if God wanted to prove his existence, he could have revealed himself and removed all doubt, as he will on the last day. In the meantime, “There is enough light for those who only desire to see, and enough obscurity for those who have a contrary disposition.”

That’s funny. Here’s a different way to think of it. Who is the better designer/builder: 1) the one who built the horseless carriage, then the Model T, the Thunderbird, the Mustang, etc., or 2) the one who built a horseless carriage that could build copies of itself and improve on its own design until it “evolved” into an entire auto industry?

Well said. Or, if the metaphor of Genesis 1 is CREATION = WORK, then we should not be surprised if the Creator employed some tools (e.g. evolution) in his labor.

Okay, take a few deep breaths. :grinning: You seem so focused on the end of a life that you miss the rest of it. Was the bird’s few years of existence outweighed by the few moments of its death? Was its life truly worth nothing? Read Job 38-41. God delights in his creation, especially “Behemoth, which I made just as I made you.” If God used evolution to create all life, including human life, this statement makes perfect sense.

I’ll try not to speak “more of the same.” Primate society is characterized by deception, manipulation, and social status/power. These are the natural roots of human sinfulness. I think we see a hint of that fact in the description of the serpent as one of “the wild animals the Lord God had made.” The key building blocks of human language, sociality, and morality rest on truthful communication, empathy, and cooperation. In a nutshell, human evolution took a “right” turn away from competition and toward cooperation. That transition wasn’t accomplished overnight.

I sketched out a portion of my answer in this article:

You can find my longer treatment of the issue starting here: Adam’s Evolutionary Journey, Pt. 1

1 Like
68

A former boss of mine use to say “If two people agree with each other, then one of them is unnecessary.”

Along that same line of thought: if your program is to make Genesis 1 align with science, then why do you need Genesis 1? You’ve already chosen where your true trust lies: with science. Some of us here think that maybe Genesis has important stuff we should attend to on its own terms which aren’t at all concerned with what we call our scientific questions. That doesn’t give answer to your agonized tension, to be sure, in fact it merely shows it in more stark relief from both scriptures and science. But at least we see with increasing clarity what all it is that theodicy has on its plate. And eventually, many mature believers come to realize that all such attempted analysis are a plate of food they aren’t obliged to finish, but can just set aside as they move on to more pressing matters … such as working to alleviate such suffering as we can in our own little corner of the world.

3 Likes
69

Hi Christopher,
You are correct, many people have put together many different theories about how to think about the Genesis story. One is called the “framework hypothesis” I think this is part of what John Walton outlines in “The Lost World of Genesis” He also talks about other ideas about the garden being like God building a temple and the days describing functional rather than material realities. My husband isn’t a fan of this functional idea, but I think the other framework hypothesis is rather standard and generally accepted by old earth creationists. (feel free others online here to correct this description if I’m not describing it accurately)

He has a whole “Lost world” series of books that a lot of BioLogos people like and often recommend.

If you want to get an understanding of John Walton’s work quickly without taking the time to thoroughly read the book(s), there are lots of videos of him talking about his interpretations:

search YouTube for
“John Walton the Lost World of Genesis”
or “John Walton the Lost World of Adam and Eve”
or “John Walton Flood”

3 Likes
70

Hi Christopher,

I think I understand what you’re wrestling with - in one scenario God created a perfect, pain-free world, which was corrupted by Satan and Sin. In another, God intentionally created a world in which suffering and death are a part.
I can see how the shifting to the second paradigm would call God’s character into question, and I appreciate the struggle you are going through & your honesty and obvious trust in God to guide you through the process.
My personal feeling is that the Creationist view doesn’t absolve God of creating pain and suffering. If we take the Genesis account literally, God (who knows the end from the beginning), created Satan and allowed him to enter his perfect world, and corrupt it with suffering and death. An omnipotent God then allows all the suffering, pain and death to continue for thousands of years - and to the afflictions of innocents God’s response is, “Don’t worry - it’s all part of my plan.” Which is very similar to the evolutionary model, where death is all part of the plan. So God’s overarching plan involves (and has involved from the very beginning),suffering, pain and death - from whichever point you view it.
For some reason it also included the suffering, pain and death of Jesus. Maybe the resurrection gives us hope that one day we’ll understand the purpose behind all the bad stuff., and that all the creatures who’ve suffered will be comforted and happy. I personally imagine an all-encompassing resurrection, which somehow gives every creature a second eternal, happy life.
Witnessing brutality and suffering is really difficult for me, and I don’t understand why God has included it in his system. I know that good things (improved character for example), can result from periods of discomfort - but, as you point out, it’s hard to see what good can come from an animal being ripped limb from limb. I really hope that one day we will all be resurrected to a world without pain or death, and that we will gain some understanding of why all this corruption and anguish was necessary, and why God didn’t just skip straight to the New Heavens and New Earth (as @Laura mentioned earlier).
Thank you for sharing your thoughts and experiences here :slight_smile:
Stacey

5 Likes
71

If you’d be open to sharing: I’d be interested in hearing more of your story. What brought you to this place of accepting evolutionary science and thus questioning its implications for your faith?

72

Hi Christy,

I really appreciate you sharing your thoughts and experiences here, I always get so much from your posts.
This point in particular intrigued me:

I hear many people speak in these kinds of terms, of experiencing and encountering God - rather than just believing what the Bible describes. I always wonder what that looks like, as I don’t feel like I have ever ‘encountered’ God. I have felt very light and happy sometimes in worship at church, and I always feel better after I pray about things.
If I ask myself “Why is the Bible true?” I come up with answers like, “The Gospel accounts would have been refuted by eye-witnesses if they weren’t based in true events,” but most likely it is because I was brought up to believe that it is true. I also for some reason just ‘believe’ that there is a God - I don’t think I could hold an atheistic world-view even if I tried. I have never been able to shake the conviction that there is a God behind all of this. From that point, (believing that there definitely is a God), then out of all the ‘gods’ I know of, Jesus is my favourite and I believe the most likely to be the true and accurate representation of the God of the universe. I think His way of doing things is perfect, and most of the human beings whom I admire are followers of Jesus. The Bible is also true for me because it acknowledges sin, and the need for justice. I think if God just said, “Hey, I know you’ve done bad stuff, but don’t worry about it - I don’t care,” it would leave me empty. I need to know that hurting other people is important, and requires atonement and forgiveness.
I’ve strayed away from my point - how would you feel about elaborating on your experience of encountering God? Is it something you contribute to through spiritual practices, or a spontaneous circumstance? I have experimented with meditation, fasting and probably other spiritual disciplines which I can’t remember from the top of my head - and I have certainly felt closer to God during such times, but I’ve never experienced what I would be able to define as a definite encounter with God.
I remember a Pastor once telling us that we should constantly be speaking out loud to the Holy Spirit. He gave the example of himself and his wife - how could he expect to have a meaningful relationship with his wife if he only spoke to her once a week? I felt like, well God expects us to have a meaningful relationship with Him, and He’s just written us a letter and then not spoken to us since, Why should I do all the talking? Which is reductionist and childish I know - but I still wish God were a bit more accessible.
Anyway - thankyou for all your input here, I really admire you.
Stacey :slight_smile:

2 Likes
73

Very deep, thanks for sharing

74

Excellent! Thank you @Jay313 - I look forward to reading up further and liked your thoughtful answers

2 Likes
75

Thanks @MOls - sounds interesting, I’ll have a look :slight_smile:

1 Like
76

@staceyinaus :heart: Deep words - I think we all resonate together on those points

2 Likes
77

I feel the same. I would feel very uncomfortable in that class! I can not think of any incontrovertible proof, either experiential or abstract reason, that I have encountered. However, I need God.

My father was similar; but he often would say, “some say that the belief in God is a crutch. I would agree. I find Him a crutch that I can not live without.” I feel the same.

3 Likes
78

I’m late to the party on this, partly due to my son’s birthday and party the last few days. I haven’t even caught up with reading everything here carefully, but I wanted to say at least something about the bigger issue I sidestepped last post:

As a few people mentioned, suffering isn’t unique to evolution among all natural processes, and suffering doesn’t challenge the cohesion of only evolutionary creationists’ beliefs. Even though electromagnetism and gravity may lead to gruesome results, those forces don’t get the same bad rap because they haven’t been sold to the public as “white in jolt and spark” or “yellow in puddle of goup.” But they, thermodynamics and various other processes all contribute to a world that hurts.

Blaming Adam and Satan feels hollow, partly because it raises these creatures to Creators by shifting so many aspects of our world out of the domain of what God made. The central claim of creation is that all that comes to exist is ultimately from the Creator’s hand. That would seem to include the natural processes that enable suffering and the minds and wills that enable evil. One way to shelter God is claiming that evil doesn’t exist, such as by defining evil as the privation of good. It is the lack of a thing rather than an actual thing. There’s a long philosophical tradition going that way, but I doubt I’m alone in finding it too clever and, in the face of real horrors, too limp.

So all that’s to say the problem can’t be dismissed and can’t be pinned on evolution. But maybe we can scale the problem down a bit. Most organisms don’t suffer as much as we can feel on their behalf. A rutting buck’s antlers raked the tender bark all around our young fig tree last fall, leaving the tree girdled and weeping sap. I’m pretty sure I feel that evil more than our fig does. In creatures closer to our level of sentience, the adrenalin from a fight-or-flight response tends to deaden pain; those who freeze to death typically lose consciousness well before the end. Neither our world in general nor the present results of evolution seem designed to experience maximum pain.

But still, animals suffer, sometimes greatly. How do we make sense of that? I wouldn’t entirely dismiss an answer you raised that you find sick, though I admit it makes me queezy too: sometimes the way suffering individuals chug the system forward is by ensuring fewer of the next generation face that particular suffering. Because many horrific, painful conditions coincide with animals who have fewer viable offspring, their spread is checked. Not always, but often. Natural selection skews away from lives dominated by pain.

But beyond this, there’s good reason to prefer a world where even people can suffer. Some element of pain and possible failure seems to lie beneath the potential for many of the greatest elements of our existence. Most athletics would merely be admiring other people’s genes if it wasn’t for how some of us can push through pain, conquer inertia, defy the cushy path and beat body and mind into a shape that can do astounding things. If everyone could do anything without risking discomfort or pushing against obstacles, every achievement would be tawdry. And the virtues we tend to admire most – bravery, compassion, self-sacrifice, devotion, love – all seem to find their truest expression when they come at a cost or at least the real potential of a high cost. A world where that cost never needed to be paid would be cheap and fruitless.

Once I can see the value of some suffering, some pain, I think it’s less of a stretch to stuff unprovable hopes into the remaining cracks. Perhaps resurrection life can more than compensate those Lazaruses who feel outsized hardship in this life. Perhaps there are countless angels and one of their duties is tending to those animals who face horrors that our world is not designed to produce, but neither is designed to completely eliminate. Add in a Creator who feels our pain firsthand. Stir it all together and still the problem isn’t solved, but it’s dulled to a level I can live with.

7 Likes
79

Aww, thanks for your kind words, Stacey.

I feel like I will do an inadequate job, but I will try. I am not a particularly emotional person, and I generally have a hard time accessing and expressing my feelings. But some of my most profoundly emotional experiences have been in worship, in private prayer (the kind where you just try to stay quiet and listen), and in praying with other people. I don’t know how to describe it other than a sense of God’s presence, of something beyond myself and outside myself meeting and ministering to something very deep in my being that results in some kind of change. Like fears, anxieties, bitterness, and hurt taken away, or a sense of worthlessness and failure replaced with a sense of love and value, or indecision and doubt replaced with confidence. Or like I am able to believe truth that I was resisting before. Also, I feel like many times in my life, I have prayed for something, or needed something, and something has happened that indicates to me that God cares intimately about my life and my needs and is taking care of me, and that has made me feel connected to God. On two occasions in my life, I have felt very strongly that God was telling me to do something very specific and it was an unpleasant experience. I felt hot and cold and like I was going to faint and like I couldn’t see straight and couldn’t breathe properly and like my whole body was electrified or something. I’m sure you could come up with some kind of psychological/biological explanation for that, but knowing how the situations played out, I’ll keep my own God narrative.

I don’t think these experiences constitute proof of anything. People in other religious traditions report similar things. At one point in my life that was pretty threatening to me, I think because I was hung up on how important it was to be right and others to know that. But, lately I am finding it less threatening, because I figure other people’s faith and doubts are not really my problem to fix. I can’t mediate anyone else’s relationship with God. And even if experiential knowledge is underrated in our culture, at least for arguments, it doesn’t make it worthless. I know what I ate for breakfast this morning, and am confident in that knowledge. Another person can doubt my memory or my ability to interpret reality and my assertion about what is true about my breakfast can’t really be proven just on the basis of my remembered experience. But I still know what I ate. Same thing with God, I know what has happened to me, and it counts for something to me, even if it doesn’t prove anything to anyone else.

6 Likes
80

Christopher, I finally got to your post about Paul and Matthew’s creativity with Scripture, seeing more than was in the earlier writer’s mind:

I’m all for following Matthew and Paul’s examples on how to read Scripture. They used their creativity to point to Christ, not to line up some verses with science. Those clues I mentioned earlier are ways I think the Bible doesn’t demand or even accord that well with a YEC reading, but they don’t reveal evolution, they’re largely incidental details, and I wouldn’t want to rest my faith on them.

Richard Hays has written a lot about hermeneutics based on how the NT authors use the OT. I’ve appreciate parts of his Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul and The Moral Vision of the New Testament, and his more recent book on echoes in the gospels might be even more relevant (I haven’t got to it yet). Also, if you’re interested, you’re welcome to read my paper on Matthew’s approach to Scripture.

4 Likes