Science and Evolution:
Four Christian Views
JOHN OAKES, PhD
Proyecto Esdras May 8, 2010
2010 ICEC
Concordia University, Irvine CA
June 11-13
International Christian Evidences Conference
Featured Speaker:
John Clayton
www.evidenceforchristianity.
org
joakes01@san.rr.com
Kevin Anderson
Public Forum:
Four Christian Views of
Evolution
John Clayton
June 12 7:00
$12/$10 Students
10 Goodyear, Irvine CA
Young Earth
Creationism
Progressive
Creationism
John
Oakes
Denis
Lamoreax
Intelligent
Design
Evolutionary
Creationism
Our Outline






Science and Religion: The Limits of Science
The History of Science and Christianity
The Age of the Universe and the Age of the Earth
Genesis 1 and Creation
Evolution: The Evidence
Four Christian Views of Evolution
Science
The use of experiment to test theories about
the laws of nature.
Science is about things which can be
measured.
Science



Scientific knowledge is quantitative
Scientific knowledge changes and improves
over time
Scientific knowledge is neither true nor
false, but rather consistent with the
observations and consistent with prior
knowledge
Religion




Religion is a belief in something
The belief is not necessarily substantiated
by physical or material evidence
Religious knowledge obtained through holy
writings, authority, revelations
Religious believers have faith or trust in
such knowledge
Religion




Religious knowledge is qualitative not
quantitative.
Religious knowledge is not gotten through
measurement
In religion knowledge is taken as either true
or false.
Religious knowledge is neither progressive,
nor tentative.
Questions Science Can Answer





When?
What?
Where?
How many?
By what means?
Questions Science Cannot Answer:
(That Religion Does Answer)
Why am I here?
 Is that the right thing to do?
 How valuable am I?
 Does God exist? Does God act (theism)?
 Will that God respond if I pray?
 Do supernatural events (miracles) happen?
 In other words, Religion answers the questions
people actually care about!


A statement a scientist should not make (if he or she is well
trained and is not manipulating you):


Evolution is true.
The Big Bang happened.

Better statements:

The theory of evolution is by far the best model we have to
explain both the fossil evidence and the genetic evidence with
regard to the origin of all species.
The Big Bang model is in dramatic agreement will all known
facts about the origin and history of the universe.


Science seeks consistency, not “truth.” What is the simplest
and most consistent explanation of the observation.
Conclusions about Science and
Religion

Religion and science ask different kinds of
questions and define words differently

Religion and science are two very different world
views but at times they address the identical
information area

If Christianity is true, then the Bible should not
contradict what we know from science.
Unanswered questions which seem
to relate to science

Consciousness (what is consciousness and why
are we conscious?)

Origins of life

Origin of the universe. Why is there anything (as
opposed to nothing)

Origin of Species* (this is our topic)
Galileo Galilei
(1564-1642)
“The Bible was written to
tell us how to go to heaven,
not how the heavens go”
“In discussions of physical
problems we ought to begin
not from the authority of
scriptural passages, but from
the sense-experiences and
necessary demonstrations.”
Galileo on Revelation

“For the Holy Bible and the phenomena of nature
proceed alike from the divine Word, the former as
the dictate of the Holy Spirit and the latter as the
observant executor of God’s commands.”

Is there such a thing as Natural Revelation/General
Revelation? (as opposed to special revelation) In
other words, can we gather genuine knowledge of
God from looking at his creation?
Sir Isaac Newton
(1642-1727)
“The Mechanical
Universe”
Introduced idea of
deism (an uninvolved
God)
LaPlace
(1749-1827)
About God:
“I have no
need of that
hypothesis”
“It is mere rubbish
to think at this
point of the origin
of life. One might
as well think of the
origin of matter.”
Charles Darwin
Might the origin if species be
deistic—governed by natural
processes?
The Conservative Christian Reaction
Scopes “monkey trial” 1925
Clarence Darrow and
William Jennings
Bryan
1940’s and afterward:
Young Earth
Creationism Movement
Very Bad Science!
Can Science and Religion peacefully coexist?



The Language of
God
Head of Genome
Project
Head of National
Institutes of Health
(NIH)
Reasons Collins believes in God
1. There is something instead of nothing.
2. The unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics.
3. The Big Bang.
4. Nature does not solve the problem of why.
5. Fine tuning of the universe. The “Goldilocks
Paradox.”
6. The existence of moral law.
7. Let me add: The obvious inspiration of the Bible.
The Age of the Universe and the Age
of the Earth
Bishop Ussher 1640:
The universe was
created on Sunday
October 23, 4004 BC
Cosmic Speedometer

When a galaxy is receding, light waves travelling to us are
red-shifted

Hubble measured the spectrum
of these galaxies and found the
spectral lines to be red-shifted

The faster the recession, the
greater the red-shift
Galaxies:
islands of stars making up the universe
Hubble constant graph:
Distance vs. speed of regression
Expansion of the Universe
… ‘winding’ backwards, the universe must have had a beginning
Image of Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation
From COBE satellite red = slightly warmer
The “smoking gun” of the Big Bang
Tests of the Big Bang Theory

Expansion of the universe

Cosmic microwave background

Relative abundances of
hydrogen, deuterium,
helium and lithium
Obtaining the Age of the
Universe

Extrapolate the current expansion rate
(Hubble constant) back to the Big Bang


Look for the oldest stars
(in globular clusters)


13.5 billion years
13.0 billion years old
Best current estimate is
13.4 ± 0.4 billion years
M10 Globular Cluster
How Old is
the Earth?

James Hutton, 1787 Uniformitarianism “No vestige
of a beginning, no concept of an end.”
Deep
Time
Index fossils give the relative age of a rock
Radiometric Dating Techniques
mother/daughter
isotope pair
half-life
U238 → Pb206
4.5 billion years
U235 → Pb207
704 million years
K40 → Ar40
1.25 billion years
Th232 → Pb208
14.8 billion years
Genesis Chapter One: Creation





Young Earth Theory
 Earth is young and science supports this conclusion.
 Earth is young because God created it “with an
appearance of age.”
Day/Age Theory
Gap Theory
 A huge “gap” of time between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2
Literary Theory
It’s all just a myth
Each view has its problems
A Quick Summary of Genesis One:
a. God pre-existed the universe
b. God created the universe: “Let there be light”
c. God created the earth
d. God created life
e. Last of all, God created mankind
A More Detailed Summary of Genesis One
From the Viewpoint of an Observer on the Earth:
a. The earth created and is spinning: night and day. Day 1
b. Water covers earth, Very thick atmosphere forms. Day 2
c. The earth cools, land appears out of the water. Day 3
d. Life appears on the earth. Day 3
e. (Photosynthetic life dramatically changes the chemistry of the
atmosphere from reducing to oxidizing.)
f. Finally, the heavenly objects appeared in the sky Day 4
g. More advanced life forms; first in the water, later on the land Day 5
h. Even more advanced life forms. Last of all human beings Day 6
Where is the scientific error in this?
Is Genesis 1:1 a Myth?

Yes! It is a true myth.
 A myth is a simplified story, given to explain the gods (or
God) to common people.
Is the Metaphorical Day a Reasonable
Interpretation?
Pre-Science Theologians Who Said Yes.

Philo 1st century

Origen early 3rd century

Augustine early 5th century

Thomas Aquinas 13th century
Evolution and the Bible

What does the Bible say?


God created all life in its various forms, but how did he
do this? Remember, the Bible is not a science book.
What does the physical evidence say?




Fossil evidence
Genetic/DNA evidence
Is there “Irreducible Complexity?”
What about human evolution?
Finches discovered
And drawn by
Charles Darwin
Evidence of
Evolution?
Evolution of whales over time?
Evolution of
horses?
Morphological Evidence of Common Descent
Human
chromosome #2
and Great Ape
chromosome #2p,
2q: evidence for
common descent.
More Genetic Evidence for Common Descent

Pseudogenes

Vitamin C Pseudogene in great apes and humans

Retroposons, SINEs (short interspersed elements), etc.

Viral insertions

Bottom line, genetic evidence, at least in the big picture,
strongly supports common descent.
table 1
Chimpanzee
Gene sequence that
codes for protein
Random DNA segment
between genes
100%
98%
Dog
99%
52%
Mouse
99%
40%
Chicken
75%
4%
Fruitfly
60%
~0%
Roundworm
35%
~0%
Typical random point mutation rates are about 1x10-5 –
1x10-7 mutations/generation.
5 million years = 250,000 generations.
Sufficient for random mutations to explain the change
without the intervention of a guiding hand?
But………..

The Cambrian Explosion

“Punctuated Equilibrium?”

Theistic Evolution
Fossils
from
creatures
which
appeared
in the
“Cambrian
Explosion”
Life in the Cambrian
Some Tentative Conclusions

Evolution has happened. Microevolution has been observed.

Fossil evidence strongly supports the idea of change over time, but that
change often happens in surprisingly sudden bursts. The Cambrian
explosion raises real questions.

Genetic evidence gives rather strong support to the idea of common
descent.

Like it or not, this is true of humans as well.

Statistical and other arguments give support for evolution being
theistic, rather than deistic, but this is not a scientific argument.

God invented evolution; let us give him credit for a great idea.
Four Christian Views of Evolution

Young Earth Creationism





Scientific Young Earth
Theological Young Earth
Intelligent Design
Theistic Evolution
Evolutionary Creationism
Scientific Young Earth Creationism

A scientific hypothesis that the earth is young and, for all
practical purposes, evolution has not happened.

The scientific young earth view rejects cosmology, geology
and evolution. In effect, it rejects science altogether.

It requires rejecting science and general revelation.
(Galileo and geocentrism)

This is not scientific. It is anti-scientific. Why? There is
literally no evidence the earth is young.
Theological Young Earth Creationism






A purely theological hypothesis that God created the earth
“with an appearance of age.”
Rejects cosmology, geology and evolution, but not science
in general because the rejection is theological, not
scientific.
This view is NOT anti-scientific.
How old was the wine Jesus created?
Rejects general revelation?
As a theological view, it is possible, but problematic. Is
God tricking us?
Young Earth Summary

Scientific Young Earth Creationism is VERY bad
science.

Theological Young Earth Creationism is not bad
science, but it raises difficult theological questions.
Intelligent Design (ID)/Progressive Creationism




Accepts Cosmology
Accepts Geology
Rejects Evolution? Rejects macroevolution. Rejects
common descent. Skeptical of evolution. Argues for
“irreducible complexity.”
Uses God-of-the-gaps arguments

Note: God-of-the-gaps arguments are NOT scientific (even if they
are true!).
Tends to confuse theological issues with scientific ones.
 Carries baggage from predestination/Calvinism?
I agree with the theology of ID, but am hesitant about the
science of ID. There is a sense in which it is not scientific.

Theistic Evolution





Accepts cosmology, geology and evolution as scientific
hypothesis.
Accepts common descent as a good scientific (note,
scientific) hypothesis.
Sees both free will and God’s sovereign will in history, in
individuals and in nature.
God works through evolution, but he directs the path,
either by subtly directing it or by dramatic intervention.
Although some scientific evidence and even statistical
arguments support this conclusion it is a purely theological
hypothesis.
Theistic Evolution (cont.)







God’s relationship with history is theistic, but with free will.
God’s relationship with us is theistic, but with free will.
God’s relationship with nature is theistic, but with free will.
God gives us free will, in that choosing to reject God is not
completely unreasonable. God uses nature to support our
faith but not to demand it.
Although the evidence supports evolution of human beings,
Adam and Eve were special creations.
John the Baptist: Out of these stones, God can raise up
children of Abraham.
The fish Jesus created had retroposons, pseudogenes and
viral insertions.
Evolutionary Creationism






Accepts cosmology, geology and evolution.
Accepts common descent as both a scientific and a
theological hypothesis.
Evolution was a purely natural, undirected process.
God is the designer, who, in his incredible wisdom and
foreknowledge, set the universe and evolution in motion.
Hypothesizes a God-of-no-gaps.
If God had to intervene in the free process of evolution, that
would be to lessen God—a God who had to correct his
mistakes.
Evolutionary Creationism







Adam and Eve are not real persons. They are symbolic.
The human soul and spirit evolved, along with our
intelligence and other abilities.
Accepts the literary view of Genesis 1-3.
The Bible has incorrect science because God
“accommodates” our primitive understanding.
God’s relationship with history is theistic, but with free will.
God’s relationship with us is theistic, but with free will.
God’s relationship with nature is deistic. God does not
intervene.
Good science, but questionable theology.
Summary

There is no view without any problems, either logical,
scientific or theological.

Obviously, I prefer the position described as Theological
Evolution, but I may be wrong.

This is not a salvation issue. We should be tolerant of
divergent views on unimportant doctrines. (Titus 3:9)

All agree that we are “fearfully and wonderfully made.”
that all God’s works are wonderful (Psalm 139:14)