While I denounce creationism as heretical, I do not accept the use of positions on global warming as a measure of acceptable theology. Don’t get me wrong. I think their argument is nonsense and we are called to be stewards of the Earth. We should definitely be paying attention to potential problems like this. But I do think the issues of global warming are too complex to be treated in this way, with the implication of a demand that everyone fall in line with the most popular dogma.
Incidentally, I saw something today that put accusations of heresy such as these right into proportion. It’s a talk by Dallas Jenkins, the Director of the TV series “The Chosen”:
He says he gets accused of heresy by people on all sides all the time. Some people think he’s a heretic because he’s an evangelical, some people think he’s a heretic because he has non-evangelicals working on the project, all sorts of things. He just shrugs it off.
Perhaps we should do the same. After all, who cares what pseudo-Christian cults think of us? The only thing that matters is what Jesus thinks of us.
5 Likes
Eric Metaxas interviewed Rev. Keller in 2012 and he talked about his views there. The relevant bit is 19:20-27:20. Here he called himself an “old earth progressive creationist who believes there really was a literal Adam and Eve.” I don’t know if his views have shifted at all since then.
3 Likes
Thanks Kathryn. That is similar to the view I was brought up, my dad was an OEC, but didn’t know the name of it. He didn’t agree with the YEC literalness view (he was a physical geographer), and more then that, we were never taught that views on origins were indicative of believe/lack of salvation, depending on the view you held. Perhaps not such a hang-up in the late 70s and 80s with churches, but I never really hear of churches going hardcore YEC until the last 20 years, or so. Perhaps just my experience, but I just don’t understand the rigidity of the YEC movement. Sorry for the tangent, just interesting as I haven’t heard of that view called something.
3 Likes
I noted when watching the recent interview with Dr. Collins that he said in passing that they did not agree on matters of human creation, which I thought was great in showing by example how you can disagree yet embrace one another in Christ.
6 Likes
I just finished watching it as well, very insightful!
Fortunately, God does not judge us based on whichever view we take on how to best interpret Genesis. Our relationship with God is between each of us individually and God alone. And our salvation depends on Christ alone and how we respond to Him: on whether we trust His work on the Cross as payment for our sins. So I really think it is best for people not to judge where others stand before God. Jesus taught us not to judge others (Matthew 7: “Do not judge, or you too will be judged…You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.”) It seems that people who call others heretics for holding certain views on creation are acting like the older brother in the parable of the prodigal son (Luke 15). Tim Keller wrote a wonderful little book about that parable called, Prodigal God. I aspire to be like people like Tim Keller, Ravi Zacharias and Dallas Jenkins (who was mentioned above, as the director of “The Chosen”) in their ability to focus on and clearly explain the essentials of the gospel in a compassionate way.
1 Like
Yes indeed. That’s on my list of books “every Christian needs to read before they die”!
3 Likes
Liam,
For what it is worth, from this Refomed Christian, the question of heresy pivots around how much one starts to deny basic, traditional, Essential, and otherwise long-held orthodox beliefs of the faith, not so much as to whether or not one embraces evolution. E.g…
Acceptance of micro-evolution bears essentially no consequence to any other traditional doctrine.
Acceptance of large-scale, macro-evolution begins to require significant “modifications” of traditional Christian belief in other areas not immediately or directly related to evolution. E.g., you have the non-existence of Adam (as traditionally understood), you must reject the idea that sin and/or death entered the world with Adam, and that God had created an initial world that was “very good” wherein there was no death. This then, like dominoes, must significantly modify other New Testament theologies… particularly the “through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin…” must be understood as radically different than would have ever been understood previously… the existence of sin is not the moral result of “one man’s trespass,” but is the result (and partly the method) of the very process by which we were created. There are certainly other theological implications between the two options: Did God create us good and we became bad, or did God create us bad?
I would also add that I find it has implications for how we trust anything in Scripture… if the basic, foundational understanding Paul had about redemption was so wrong-headed… Paul was either so ignorant and completely mistaken (and then why trust anything else he wrote?) … or was so free with his use of analogy I would have trouble interpreting anything else in scripture… must I treat his treatise in a Romans 6 As allegorical? If so, Maybe he didn’t really mean literally the wonderful “all things together for good” promise… or perhaps “the free gift of God is eternal life” is either as erroneous, or allegorically fanciful, as his “Through one man sin entered…”?
If the bottom-line reality is that sin and death had always been around, and there was in fact no initial innocent state free of sin and death, then this has major consequences in many other parts of our belief system, such as basic ideas of redemption. Essentially, that is why I imagine charges of outright heresy are not leveled quite as freely against those, like Keller or C.S. Lewis, who had a certain openness to large-scale evolution, but who yet maintain(ed) adherence to traditional doctrines of a good creation (in some sense), a genuine fall, a real introduction of sin and death in some sense into the world, By one man’s free sin, and see the redemption as a restoration of the original… over against those who, due to commitment to larger evolutionary theory, reject (or modify beyond recognition) all of those traditional beliefs.
So, The charges of heresy I don’t think are leveled (at least by many) because of their adherence to evolution… rather it is the denial of the other long-held and rather central doctrines of the faith that the adherence to evolution seems to compel one to reject, which give rise to the charge, if I am not entirely mistaken.
2 Likes
Hey @Daniel_Fisher, I’ve always enjoyed reading your posts so thanks for taking the time to reply.
I’m glad we can agree on this. It is theological stances, not scientific ones that ultimately mark someone out as heretical or not. Yet, Christian approaches to evolution are a broad church with many options for how to understand the role of Adam in Genesis 2-3, Romans 5, and 1 Corinthians 15. As a result, I find most presentations of EC/TE by those who hold a different position often look like straw men. Straw men arguments always look convincing to those who’ve already made up their mind. But to those who hold the view in question they simply undermine the detractor’s credibility. Or to put it another way, you only get squished by the dominoes if they are falling in your direction to begin with ;-).
Apologies, I find your post a little confusing from here on out. Are you presenting this as an example of Christian approaches to Christian that might lead to heresy or are you saying this is what all TE/EC people believe? The reason I ask is it isn’t always clear in the text that follows whether you are talking about the implications of accepting evolution generally or one approach to evolution and bible specifically.
Perhaps you could clarify? Thanks again.
2 Likes
An aside on Micro vs Macroevolution.
I remember the micro vs. macro arguments from my YEC days. Respectfully, I am now convinced it is an artificial separation. What I mean is at what level does microevolution take place? Phylum? Class? Order? Genus?
Let me give you an example from the insect world. Does the diversification of the Hymenoptera into bee, ants and wasps represent a micro or macro step in evolution? Or how about behaviour developments that separate bees into social, solitary, and parasitic? Are these Micro or Macro changes?
This applies to other areas of insect development too. For example, the superorder Dictyoptera includes two orders which on the surface appear completely unrelated: Mantodea (praying mantises) and Blattodea (cockroaches and termites). Let’s compare: Cockroaches are semi-social omnivorous detritivores; termites are eusocial nest builders; praying mantises are carnivorous ambush predators; And yet both orders share so many commonalities that they must have common ancestry (eg. anatomy, reproductive technics, incomplete metamorphosis, etc). So again, is micro or macroevolution responsible for these changes?
If we argue that micro-evolution happens at a class level (eg. insects always evolve into insects), then given the diversity covered, that would stretch micro beyond all meaning. If we say it refers to lots of small changes that happened to Insecta class over time, then by the time we track those changes throughout history they begin to look like some pretty macro changes. Which is (to my knowledge) what macroevolution represents; the adding together of countless micro changes. Or to put it another way, microevolution is marcoevolution under a microscope.
Perhaps, I have misunderstood. Either way, I’d love your hear your thoughts.
Blessings, Liam
8 Likes
Liam, very good thoughts as always. I do not categorically disagree. But what I think you are talking about here is almost in the philosophical realm of discussions about categories. Essentially, I would respond and agree that it is near impossible to determine a strict or clear boundary line between many categories, including micro and macro evolution. There can be all manner of debate about exactly where, or if, that line exists. But all that said, I think the two categories remain very useful and real distinctions.
(Consider, one could similarly observe that there is no hard and fast boundary between, say, HCLCA and modern man… one discreet spot where we can categorically determine that one began and the other ended. But that doesn’t mean that they are not useful, distinct, separate categories, no?)
Clearly, for those who have embraced the Darwinian model, there is no barrier between the two by definition… Macro-evolution to Darwin was in fact a long series of consecutive and cumulative “micro” evolutionary steps. And thus, for a committed Darwinist or evolutionist, it at first seems to be a near useless distinction… macro evolution is just the very exact same process as micro evolution just over a longer scale.
The distinction, unless I’m mistaken, was coined or utilized by Darwin skeptics in order to clarify that they did not in fact deny evolution in the micro-scale (the same illustrations Darwin appealed to in his book). Variations among bird beaks, selective breeding, etc… are the kinds of “evolution” that no YEC disagrees with, so I find it courteous to acknowledge their acknowledgement of that point… in the micro scale, evolution does happen, rather as Darwin described.
The distinction in language exists to clarify where we Darwin skeptics take exception… while I have no issue with evolution in the micro-scale, I simply do not believe the mechanism behind these kinds of small changes is adequate to explain large macro changes, especially with huge leaps in complexity.
So that said, a few observations…
1.The very fact that “punctuated equilibrium” was ever even a thing points out at least some basis for recognizing a distinction between small variation within extant species, and large scale changes that seemed undocumented by fossil record. Stephen Jay Gould was hardly a defender of YEC (to my knowledge), but his examination of the data led him to support a hypothesis that, at core, observed stable periods of animal life wherein micro-evolution happened, but wherein there were no obvious macro evolutionary changes. The macroevolutionary changes that he clearly believed in were nonetheless hypothesized as having happened in discreet, accelerated, shorter periods of time, contrasting with much longer periods where only microevolutionary changes happened. He didn’t use that language, I don’t believe, but his hypothesis clearly rests on a recognition of the difference and distinction between small scale changes (that he viewed as somewhat stable across the fossil record) and large scale changes (that he suggested were quick to happen and thus not well preserved in the record). If there were no such recognition of the difference between such large scale and small scale changes, he would have had no need to develop his punctuated equilibrium hypothesis.
2.Secondly, to further illustrate, Id point to the obvious distinction between prokaryotes and eukaryotes. There have been long-term evolution experiments on bacteria, not to mention we’ve been observing bacteria for a long time. Perhaps 1,000,000 generations of them and countless billions of organisms have lived, reproduced, and evolved while we’ve been able to observe. Yet for all their fascinating adaptations and evolutions, they are essentially the same organism. Many of the adaptations can be coaxed and seen to have happened multiple times. Many are reversible, given the right conditions. Some evolutionary changes are, relatively speaking, “easy.” Whatever evolutionary changes happen are clearly within a certain “micro” category, the kinds of changes that are modifications of existing structure and mechanism not surprising to observe over the course of thousands of generations. “Tinkering”, as it has been called.
But some changes we simply don’t observe, even with creatures that reproduce every 20 minutes and with massive population sizes, where in our lifetimes we could see near a million generations across billions of organisms. Whatever the arguments Darwin’s defenders have for why we don’t see such changes, I think we can all agree that some evolutionary changes simply are in a different category altogether. They are so ridiculously and exceedingly rare and complex that we won’t expect to see them over even a trillion iterations or so. E.g., We simply don’t observe new organelles form in unicellular organisms. Prokaryotes were swarming this world for some billion years before the right evolutionary changes and new organelles finally showed up and/or accumulated that would allow them to be classified as eukaryotes.
Now whatever it is, there clearly must be some kind of different “thing” going on between the kinds of evolutionary changes that we can observe in a microscope during a human lifetime, and the kinds of changes even within a single-celled organism that needs somewhere on the order of 1,000,000,000 years for us to expect it to show up.
Now, I won’t argue here that this proves something one way or the other… but I will say that this should affirm that there are indeed two entirely separate categories of evolutionary change, even if they conceivably overlap: those that are common, “relatively” easy to achieve, such that we find it unsurprising to discover such changes after watching bacteria for a “mere” 20,000 generations or so, all within a human lifetime… and those which are such radical changes that we would give the organism a new name (“eukaryote”), and that are such radical and striking changes of such complexity, requiring such major innovation and all the just right things to get organized, that my Darwin defender friends say it is would be entirely unsurprising if we watched bacteria for some 500,000,000 years and never saw anything like that kind of adaptation.
I grant that the dividing line is not always clear cut, and there may be various shades of gray… but bottom line, there certainly seem to me to be two distinct categories of evolutionary change… and that even the most committed evolutionists seem to recognize the distinction.
Thoughts?
3 Likes
Sorry for lack of clarity . Bottom line, hopefully briefly… there are plenty of folks who embrace large scale (macro) evolution in various forms, who nonetheless maintain firm belief in basic doctrines of the faith. Tim Keller seems to be an example of such. C.S. Lewis seems another… despite Lewis’s (however tentative) acknowledgement of old earth evolution, he seemed to have maintained understanding and/or belief in a historic Adam and Eve, the fall of man into sin, and the consequent ramifications for redemption.
In contrast, the scientific establishment, so to speak, and the larger scientific “consensus”, seems to require adherence to beliefs that would start to impact non-negotiable tenets of the faith.
I’m assigning no motives, or at least not attempting to… just recognizing what I think is simply an undeniable fact… YECs, or others who reject the larger evolutionary scheme, have no intrinsic pressure or inclination to deny related doctrines of the faith about creation of man, initian innocence, the fall, etc… their overall world view presents no pressure whatsoever to deny such beliefs. Those who embrace the basic evolutionary model are “swimming against the flow” of scientific claims or consensus if they maintain belief in an initial couple, an initial innocent state, a fall into sin, the arrival of death only upon man’s fall, and the redemptive n that reversed “one man’s transgression.”
I don’t mean what I wrote to sound accusatory or the like, but I think it simply an inescapable and undeniable observation of realty… there is a certain direction these dominoes areninclined to fall by their very nature… this doesn’t mean they are set up in the wrong place, nor does it mean any Christian is bound to go with them, simply that they certainly do lean in a certain direction. This seems Basic and inescapable reality, no?
1 Like
The evolution debate resulting in evolutionary theists being called heretics is of course on a most recent incidence of rival churches calling each other heretical throughout Christian history. There are so many claims between churches that have come to exist that they alone hold the true deposit of faith taught by Jesus and his disciples.
1 Like
In terms of Intelligent Design: I agree that life could not have started without God, nor would the diversity of species be possible without His work. I also think that humanity would not be capable of displaying, nor have been endowed with the image of God without the work of God. However, I struggle with the ID movement and cannot really get on board.
I liked what you wrote on this thread and agree with all of the theological points you made. My struggle has been, like @LM77 I’ve lately been thinking that micro vs macro evolution is a distinction without a difference. My second thought and difficulty with ID is that many proponents seem to focus on defeating Darwinism, which is a theory that evolutionary scientists have agreed is incomplete for decades. There are newer theories and mechanisms being discussed and debated. Thus, I think the anti-Darwin stance of some ID work also ends up being a straw man argument. With those two difficulties in my mind, I’ve been reading about other solutions that could help me synthesize a historical Adam and Eve with evolution. I admire Lewis and Keller’s attempts, as you mentioned.
4 Likes
I am landing in a similar place as well Michelle. I am relatively new to this long of thinking, have always been more an of an OEC, but did not realize the variety of different thoughts/views of the theistic evolution view. Still learning, but very interesting. What I do like, is that different views are able to be discussed without questioning the faith of others, such as when Francis Collins/Tim Keller talked (they referenced having differing opinions in the recent podcast (if I recall correctly, or did I read that elsewhere?), whereas I find with traditional YEC (Ken Hamm types/followers), they question your faith if you are not a literal 6 day YEC.
5 Likes
Michelle, thank you for the thoughts. Let me touch on one item a bit in detail, because I think the philosophy behind the distinction made regarding micro versus macro evolution is terribly significant:
First, let me underscore: Anyone who has embraced the overall evolutionary perspective, by very definition, is one who does not accept a distinction between micro and macro evolution. This is absolutely critical to understanding our differences.
In other words, those who accept the general evolutionary model specifically embrace the very idea that there is no distinction. That is the very plank and foundation of the perspective, if I understand it correctly: ie.e: there are no macro changes that could not have been achieved by accumulating a given number of micro changes.
In other words (again): the very debate between those, like me, that lean toward intelligent design, and those who embrace an evolutionary model, specifically is a debate about whether or not there is such a distinction.
If I were a supporter of the grander scale of evolution, that would be essentially my position: there are no macro changes in organisms that could not have been achieved by a series, across time, and across generations, of small-scale changes. Unless I am very much mistaken, that was, essentially, Darwin’s own specific contribution: the idea that large changes between organisms were, in fact, the result of an accumulation of numerous small changes.
What keeps me incredulous, is that as much as I understand the basic argument (that small changes which are reasonable and which can be observed, are an adequate explanation - if you have enough of them, to explain grand and complex large scale changes)… I simply find the idea simply unconvincing.
Thus the very language of “microevolution” is used by people like me in order to clarify that I don’t object to the basic mechanism, or principle, that organisms change over time, that natural variety through mutation and/or population genetics, in conjunction with natural selection, can cause significant changes to organisms as they adapt to environments. I object to the idea that this phenomenon… which itself is perfectly reasonable (and observable, testable, and repeatable, I might add), is an adequate explanation of large scale changes and radical infusions of new design and complexity.
Let me give this analogy, not to convince you, but hopefully to help you understand my perspective: if I programmed my computer to take any given sentence, run it through an algorithm that would change, insert, or delete a single letter at a time (simulating “mutations”), and then tested each mutation against a dictionary and grammar checker (to simulate natural selection), there are certain “micro changes” that seem perfectly feasible and reasonable…
If I started with “Roses are red,” I’d have no issue if someone told me said process, by itself and otherwise unguided, produced various fun new sentences such as “Noses are bled” or the like. But if someone claimEd they ran that program, let it run for a few days, and it eventually came up with the full phrase, “It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done; it is a far, far better rest that I go to, than I have ever known…” I would be incredulous, and I trust you would be too.
Now, here is the point. Hypothetically, I imagine I could conceivably trace out every single variation between “roses are red” and the Dickens quote (or any other of comparable weight and poetry), and suggest there is no kidding an actual pathway that a computer might just happen to stumble upon where it could evolve the sentence from one to the other, where each intermediate step is still a legitimate sentence with proper grammar and actual words. And hence, one could argue that there is no real distinction between the micro changes between “roses are red” and “noses are bled,” and the macro change into “‘‘tis a far, far better thing…”
But obviously, at some level, we recognize that the same process that could unsurprisingly make small changes (“Noses are bled”) simply could not be an adequate explanation for certain macro changes (“ ‘tis a far, far better thing…”) and if I tried to point out that there was not “really” any real difference or distinction, that the macro sentence was simply the result of a long cumulative effect of numerous small changes, I trust you’d remain unconvinced.
That is essentially my core objection. I understand the idea, that macro evolution is believed to be simply the result of a long cumulative process, acquiring and keeping numerous micro changes. But at some point, I start to get incredulous that the process which can account for such micro changes can be an adequate explanation for the macro changes.
I appreciate your clarification. It does also sort of bring up another difference in the way ID and TE sees the same process. In a sense, ID relegates microevolution to the natural world, and only sees the hand of God in the macroevolutionary changes seen. OEC seemingly shares this with ID (and indeed is in many ways the same, at least to my imperfect understanding. Perhaps ID sees God or whatever intelligence acting at the molecular level whereas OEC adherents feel God whips up new species from scratch) whereas TE sees the hand on God as necessary and sustaining the process at every level, though through processes and means undetermined and unknowable.
3 Likes
What is a complex large scale change? Can you point to one in the genome for me? Not like just saying “well common sense” dictates that humans are way different from chimpanzees. Help me understand what an example of a complex large scale change is AND how you determined there are no processes (that God made and upholds) that could possibly account for it.
4 Likes