Theistic Evolution

Symposium on Adam and Eve

tvanraalte

Reposted from bylogos.blogspot.ca, with thanks to Dr. John Byl. We at Creation Without Compromise have with great interest been following the symposium he reviews here.

Books & Culture has recently published a symposium on Adam and Eve. John Wilson, the B&C editor, interviews Karl Giberson about his new book Saving the Original Sinner (2015) Then follows two rounds of contributions from eight scholars. Here is the outline of the symposium, with links to all the papers.

Saving the Original Sinner [interview with Karl Giberson]

Round 1:
Round 2:
John Wilson, Adam’s Ancestors [brief wrap-up]

This symposium gives a useful overview of the current debate. The brief summaries of the views of the various participants saves one the tedious work of reading lengthy books and essays.

Unhappily, only two of the participants (VanDoodewaard and Madueme) affirm the Biblical position on Adam and Eve. The rest have all accepted evolution. Consequently, Enns, Giberson, Lamoureux, and Schneider all view Adam and Eve as purely symbolic. Walton and Poe do leave room for a modified view of Adam and Eve, but heavily adapted so as to fit within the evolutionary framework.

For those defending the plain meaning of Genesis, the contributions of Madueme and VanDoodewaard are thus particularly worth reading.

Dr Hans Madueme is Assistant Professor of Theological Studies at Covenant College in Lookout Mountain, Georgia. Here are a few pertinent quotes, one from each paper:

Obviously, if you agree with scientists that a historical Adam is impossible, then devising fresh hermeneutical strategies to resolve the tension with Scripture is a logical move. In fact, however, the Bible does very clearly depict a historical Adam; such revisionist exegesis goes against the grain of the text, driven by scientific pre-judgments that set epistemic limits on what the Bible can say. That’s a mistake; Scripture unshackled—not science—is the self-authenticating authority.

Turning to the scientific “facts,” let me call into question any commitment to methodological naturalism, the notion that we can only appeal to natural phenomena when doing genuine science. Methodological naturalism is the status quo among scientists and enshrined in the scientific perspectives that conflict with the Adamic events of Scripture. Theologically speaking, methodological naturalism strikes me as deeply problematic. To use Alvin Plantinga’s language, it yields a truncated science; it does not appeal to the full evidence base—an evidence base that, I would argue, includes divine revelation and all the glorious realities to which it attests. Once we reject methodological naturalism, we will have a truer and richer appraisal of the biblical witness and the world it signifies. An appropriately expanded understanding of biblical reality includes Adam’s historicity and its vital theological implications; for those of us who find those implications compelling, any scientific opinion that rules out Adam will fail to convince. (Death of God by Poison)

Scientific plausibility is the key; can we still believe doctrines that are implausible by the lights of current science? We can invert the question: If scientific plausibility should guide the expectations we bring to Scripture, then why would we be Christians? Why would we believe that the Son of God became a man? That he died and rose again after three days? That he ascended into heaven? These fundamental Christian beliefs contradict everything we know from mainstream science. If we can no longer believe Adam was historical, then why should we believe in the resurrection? In The Evolution of Adam, Peter Enns answers this way: “For Paul, the resurrection of Christ is the central and climactic present-day event in the Jewish drama—and of the world. One could say that Paul was wrong, deluded, stupid, creative, whatever; nevertheless, the resurrection is something that Paul believed to have happened in his time, not primordial time.” That misses the point. We’re told that we can’t affirm a historical Adam because it’s scientifically unbelievable, but why trust Paul on the resurrection when that, too, is scientifically unbelievable? Or, to flip the script, if we believe the resurrection, then a historical Adam is no biggie. (Demythologizing Adam)

Dr William VanDoodewaard is Professor of Church History at Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary in Grand Rapids, Michigan. He is an ordained minister in the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church and the author of The Quest for the Historical Adam: Genesis, Hermeneutics, and Human Origins (2015). Here is a sampling from his symposium contributions:

I stand with the mainstream of historic Christian orthodoxy believing the literal tradition, including the creation of Adam and Eve, from dirt and a rib on the sixth day, a day of ordinary duration. There are numerous reasons for the endurance of this view, despite varied efforts to the contrary of a minority stream of individuals from the patristic era to the present. First, the literal understanding of creation, including human origins, is remarkably viable exegetically. It is also hermeneutically consistent with the whole Genesis text. Second, it coheres seamlessly with the rest of Scripture’s teaching on creation, man, and redemption. The literal tradition on origins is cohesive with a full-orbed exegetically derived Christian theology.

The most substantive challenge to the literal tradition is posed by mainstream dating methods, particularly in relation to fossils. Even here, an understanding of a mature creation, the fall, curse, and ensuing natural processes interspersed with episodes of catastrophism along the way, gives cogent answers to satisfy issues of geological age and subsequent biological adaptation. The literal tradition has exegetical, hermeneutical, and theological coherence with Scripture, historical endurance beyond all other interpretive models, as well as extensive ecclesial and confessional support. There is good reason to believe that it stands as an example of the Holy Spirit’s fulfillment of Christ’s promise to guide of the church in the truth of the Word. (The First Man and Woman)

There is a certain clear and compelling logic to the post-Adam/no Adam viewpoint of Karl Giberson, Peter Enns, and others participating in this roundtable. Where we grant that an ancient earth requires an alternate, “non-literal” approach to time in Genesis 1 and 2, we are left with little (if any) exegetical ground to argue against wide-ranging evolutionary hypotheses. If we accept an adjusted hermeneutic and allow for mainstream evolutionary biology, there is no longer exegetical ground to maintain a historical Adam and Eve, created specially by God in a brief span of time, from the dust of the earth and Adam’s rib, respectively. If we have actually adopted a new hermeneutic for Genesis 1-2 and maintain that Scripture teaches a unity of truth, then we ought to revisit and work towards reinterpreting New Testament passages on Adam.

I believe that the “middle ground” of an evolutionary Adam is just as untenable and ad hoc as Giberson and Enns note it is. But instead of creating agreement, this logic is ample reason to go back to what the mainstream of the Christian church has held to for millennia. The exegetically, hermeneutically, and theologically compelling position is that God created Adam, the first man, and Eve, the first woman, without progenitors, disorder, or sin. It was this Adam and Eve, the only existing humans, who fell into sin in the Garden, bringing the curse on themselves and all creation. (No Adam, No Original Sin, No Christ)

Note that both authors make a strong case for consistency. Granting an ancient earth, and therefore adopting a non-literal approach to Gen.1-2, undermines the exegetical case for an historical Adam. Likewise, if we can’t believe in the Biblical Adam because it is scientifically implausible, why should we believe in an equally scientifically implausible resurrection from the dead?

Theistic Evolution

tvanraalte

By Mark JonesScreen Shot 2015-08-11 at 10.13.33 PM

After discussing the tensions among evolutionists concerning the precise mechanism of evolution, I thought it might be good to address the underlying metaphysical assumptions of words that are used in the academy, such as “evolution.”

The explanatory power of the Neo-Darwinian synthesis has given a number of scientists reason to abandon belief in the Christian God. However, Francis Collins’ book, The Language of God (New York: Free Press, 2006), provides an exception to the general trend of Darwinists. Fully committed to the Neo-Darwinian synthesis, Collins also claims to be a Christian. His book aims to show that belief in Darwinian evolution and Christianity are compatible, provided that Christianity is explained in such a way that does not contradict modern science. For that reason, he derides Young Earth Creationism (YEC) as “intellectually bankrupt,” one of the “great tragedies of our time” (p. 177).

He manifests a strong antipathy not only for YEC, but also for the Intelligent Design (ID) movement, because ID is not consistent with Darwinian evolution: “ID’s proposal of the intervention of supernatural forces to account for complex multicomponent biological entities is a scientific dead end” (Language of God, 187).

In The Language of God, Collins coins the term “BioLogos” (God speaking life into being) to describe his synthesis. He provides six points that explain how Darwinian evolution explains everything, except the uniqueness of human beings:

1. The Universe came into being out of nothingness, approximately 14 billion years ago.
2. Despite massive improbabilities, the properties of the universe appear to have been precisely tuned for life.
3. While the precise mechanism of the origin of life on earth remains unknown, once life arose, the process of evolution and natural selection permitted the development of biological diversity and complexity over very long periods of time.
4. Once evolution got under way, no special supernatural intervention was required.
5. Humans are part of this process, sharing a common ancestor with the great apes.
6. But humans are also unique in ways that defy evolutionary explanation and point to our spiritual nature. This includes the existence of the Moral Law (the knowledge of right and wrong) and the search for God that characterizes all human cultures throughout history (p. 200).

According to Collins, accepting these premises enables individuals to adhere to an “entirely plausible, intellectually satisfying, and logically consistent synthesis,” namely, that God created the universe (13.7 billion years ago), and established natural laws to govern the universe. The mechanism that gave rise to living creatures is the same mechanism that gave rise to human beings (pp. 200-201). Such a view, according to Collins, satisfies both science and the great monotheistic religions of the world.

Collins argues for a type of theistic evolution. He understands that “evolution” has a certain meaning in his scientific context, and he is not simply talking about “microevolution,” which nobody disputes. But he is also a “theist.” In fact, he must be given credit for being so clear about what evolution actually means in the scientific community.

Collins is not a theologian. Yet, because of his wholehearted commitment to Darwinian evolution, his theology becomes rather anemic – a sort of “God of the gaps,” which has certain corollaries with Stephen Jay Gould’s view, called “NOMA” (non-overlapping magisteria).

Underlying Metaphysical Assumptions

An inherent philosophical presupposition guides evolutionary thinking. Though disagreement exists among a number of leading evolutionists concerning the mechanisms of evolution, many of them are in agreement that a supernatural being (i.e. God) must not be invoked to help out with the difficulties. For this reason, Darwinian evolution is fundamentally atheistic.

Professor of biology at Cornell University, William Provine, candidly admits that embracing evolution makes atheists of people: “One can have a religious view that is compatible with evolution only if the religious view is indistinguishable from atheism.” The famous Harvard geneticist, Richard Lewontin, admits, because of his prior commitment to materialism, “we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”

According to the Darwinian model, human beings are an accident. If this “finely tuned” universe “banged” again, who knows what types of creatures would result? Douglas Futuyma recognizes that many find the idea that the human species was not designed somewhat hard to fathom; “but this seems to be the message of evolution” (Science on Trial, 13).

Evolution presupposes naturalism. Indeed, as Philip Johnson notes:

Naturalism is not something about which Darwinists can afford to be tentative, because their science is based upon it […]. Darwinists know that the mutation-selection mechanism can produce wings, eyes, and brains not because the mechanism can be observed to do anything of the kind, but because their guiding philosophy assures them that no other power is available to do the job. The absence from the cosmos of any Creator is therefore the essential starting point for Darwinism (Darwin on Trial, 117).

No problem is insurmountable for the theory of evolution. How the inorganic became organic still perplexes Darwinists. They simply have no answer. However, Darwinists believe in the mutation-selection mechanism, and its ability to achieve creative wonders, not because these wonders can be empirically demonstrated, but because no other explanation exists that does not involve God.

Philosophical naturalism remains so deeply ingrained in the thinking of evolutionists that they cannot possibly imagine another way of explaining the diversity of life on Earth.

In Collins’s own synthesis, he admits that the “precise mechanism of the origin of life on earth remains unknown” (Language of God, 200). Nonetheless, he states, “this is not the place for a thoughtful person to wager his faith” (p. 93).

This is a candid admission, which shows just how relentless the pursuit of naturalism is among scientists. He admits the precise mechanism of the origin of life is unknown; but his commitment to Darwinian evolution (i.e., naturalism) keeps him from affirming that God directly, not indirectly, was responsible for the origin of life.

Interestingly, Collins argues for God’s existence based on moral life (i.e., altruistic behavior among humans), but he urges extreme caution for God having anything to do with creating biological life. Moreover, Collins finds the Darwinian explanation for the moral law unsatisfying and therefore bases his belief in God in part on the argument for the existence of the moral law. Nonetheless, his reasoning about the origin of life problem should be equally applied to his reasoning for the moral law. Darwinists do in fact have explanations for altruistic behavior, and Collins has been pressed on this by his colleagues. Perhaps the evidence for a “moral law” is not the place for a thoughtful evolutionist to place his faith?

Francis Collins admits the entire story of evolution, even if he does not know how life originated. But he believes in a “god” who finely tunes the universe to allow for the possibility of evolution. Collins’s “god” is a “First Cause” who begins the process, without necessarily having anything to do with producing organic life, and “retreats” for roughly fourteen billion years only to “interfere” again by sending Jesus to die and be raised again.

Those who refer to themselves as theistic evolutionists, need to be pressed on “the blind watchmaker thesis” that is so crucial to Darwinism. Richard Dawkins has explained the idea of the “blind watchmaker” and its implications for how we view the theory of evolution: “Natural selection is the blind watchmaker, blind because it does not see ahead, does not plan consequences, has no purpose in view” (The Blind Watchmaker, 21).

The blind watchmaker thesis explains the philosophical implications of evolution. Phillip Johnson claims that he has found it “very difficult to get theistic evolutionists to discuss the blind watchmaker thesis” (p. 168). But does an appeal to God’s providence solve the problem of how random mutations can produce new species? Can we accept the mechanism of natural selection coupled with random mutations and at the same time argue that God’s providence ensured that human beings would eventually result from a cell? This type of reasoning obscures the real issue, however. Evolution cannot account for new genetic information. Indeed, providence on its own cannot account for new information, either.

Regarding the dilemma of new genetic information, the eminent French Zoologist, Pierre Grassé has proved to be a thorn in the side of Darwinians, such as Theodosius Dobzhansky, on precisely this point. Against the Darwinists, Grassé suggested that science does not know how new quantities of genetic information arrived (Evolution of Living Organisms, 2). Evolutionists still need to explain how a genetic mutation can increase information in the genome.

Theistic evolutionists could claim that the arrival of new genetic information resulted from God’s creative and sustaining energy; and they could maintain that God intervened from time to time to provide the required mutations to ensure that humans would eventually evolve. However, this view is technically not “evolution” or natural selection. And no Darwinist would accept such a construction, even if it were slightly friendlier to Darwinian evolution than typical “creationist” views.

Hypothetically, if I were to hold to “theistic evolution,” according to natural selection, Open Theism or Socinianism would be my preferred theological option.

In the end, the term “theistic evolution” is a contradiction in terms. Evolution, as understood by the scientific community is a purposeless, random process that did not have man in view. There are metaphysical assumptions that are built into the way they attempt to explain the diversity of life on earth. Christian theism is, however, teleological (Col. 1:16), and we have our own metaphysical presuppositions.

“Theistic evolution” basically means, “Purposeless purpose.” If God “guides” this process, it is not evolution. Theistic evolutionists talk about evolution as a gradual process of speciation that a Creator could have used. But the scientific community rejects this understanding of evolution. Far too many theologians have been (perhaps unwittingly) duped by thinking that “theistic” really does modify “evolution,” but this is wrong-headed. Plus, no one quite knows what “theistic evolution” means. They have no unified confession of faith.

I worry that theologians who are open to “theistic evolution,” do not quite understand what’s at stake when they willingly use the term “evolution,” as something more than what can be empirically observed (i.e., not just microevolution). They grant far more to the Neo-Darwinian scientific community than they need to. The so-called evidence for “Darwinism” rests upon a (fully naturalistic) presupposition that allows evolutionists to come to no other conclusion. No wonder they are so dogmatic about their claims. There simply is no other alternative.

Embracing Evolution: But Which Model?

tvanraalte

By Mark JonesScreen Shot 2015-08-11 at 10.13.33 PM

Contrary to popular opinion, Charles Darwin did not invent the theory of biological evolution. But his famous work, The Origin of Species, certainly gave impetus to an idea that would quickly become orthodoxy in the scientific establishment. In his work he made several significant points that have had profound consequences for how scientists understand the natural world. Darwin did not merely suggest that change takes place over time, which, technically speaking, may be called evolution (though many would prefer to use the word “adaptation,” as opposed to “evolution,” to describe changes within a given species). Rather, he questioned the concept that species are immutable (i.e., cannot change).

The idea that change takes place within a species is, of course, not controversial. But Darwin went much further than that. He suggested that new species have evolved over the course of history by a process termed “descent with modification.” On this model, all life forms have descended from a common ancestor. Somewhere, at some time, the inorganic (non-living) became organic (living), and from that microscopic ancestor we now have fish, land animals, birds, and human beings.

For this to happen, Darwin popularized the idea that this took place through natural selection, or what has commonly been termed “survival of the fittest.” Darwin’s most significant contribution to the theory of evolution was formulating the mechanism that explained the process whereby a single cell produced the variety of life found in the world today. This understanding of evolution is best described as “fully naturalistic evolution,” which is how the scientific community generally understands biological evolution.

The prominent American biologist, Douglas Futuyma provides a helpful explanation of the significance of Darwin’s theory:

By coupling undirected, purposeless variation to the blind, uncaring process of natural selection, Darwin made theological or spiritual explanations of the life processes superfluous. Together with Marx’s materialistic theory of history and society and Freud’s attribution of human behavior to influences over which we have little control, Darwin’s theory of evolution was a crucial plank in the platform of mechanism and materialism – of much of science, in short – that has since been the stage of most Western thought (Evolutionary Biology, 2).

Futuyma draws attention to an important implication of Darwinian evolution, namely, that theological explanations for origins of life, which includes special creation, are unnecessary because the Darwinian model does not simply content itself with changes within a species, but instead explains how all species came into being in the first place.

A Christian can and should affirm that in the beginning God created basic kinds of animals, which over the years subsequently diversified. The term microevolution has been used to describe this process. So, in an example that Darwin used, a group of finches happened to migrate to an island. On the island a combination of mutation, inbreeding, and natural selection caused these finches to develop different characteristics from the ancestral population on the mainland, which is known as microevolution. Even among humans microevolution occurs. God created Adam and Eve, but from this ancestral pair we see a fair amount of diversity today.

Understood in this way evolution is not controversial. As Jonathan Wells has argued, Darwinists respond to their critics by claiming that evolution means change over time. “But,” says Wells, “this is clearly an evasion. No rational person denies the reality of change, and we did not need Charles Darwin to convince us of it. If ‘evolution’ meant only this, it would be utterly uncontroversial” (Icons of Evolution, 5). But does microevolution provide an explanation for the processes responsible for creating life in the world as we see it today?

Darwinists answer that the creative force that produced complex animals, for example, from a single-celled predecessor over billions of years is in general the same mechanism that produces variation within animal and plant species that we witness today.

Critics of Darwinism, as well as Darwinists themselves, typically distinguish between microevolution and macroevolution, though both sides understand the magnitude of the distinction differently. Simply put, microevolution explains change within a species, but macroevolution explains the changes that occur above the level of species. Macroevolution explains how a species splits into two (i.e., speciation). One of the best-known Darwinists, Ernst Mayr, remarked that macroevolution (i.e., transspecific evolution) is an extrapolation of the events that take place within populations and species at the microevolutionary level. Thus, according to Darwinists the difference between micro- and macroevolution ought not to be exaggerated. The same processes that cause within-species evolution (microevolution) are responsible for above-species evolution (macroevolution). When the idea of speciation is added to Darwin’s view of natural selection the resulting theory is seen as a sufficient explanation for the rise and diversity of life.

Natural selection occurs in order to maintain and increase the genetic fitness of a population. Individual animals with genetic defects generally do not survive to produce offspring. Darwinists use this fact to build their theory that natural selection not only maintains the genetic fitness of a population, but also provides an explanation for how a single cell – or many different cells? – produced over the course of billions of years the variety of living organisms that we see today. The mutations that sometimes take place among species are almost always harmful. However, according to Darwinists, in rare cases a mutation will prove to be an advantage and thus improve the organism’s ability to survive and reproduce. If the favorable mutation spreads throughout the species it may possibly provide the basis for further improvements in succeeding generations. Speciation, via favorable mutations, can be broken down into small steps over millions of years. These steps were purposeless natural processes that did not require the belief in special creation. In Stephen Jay Gould’s much-acclaimed book, Wonderful Life (New York: Norton, 1990), he suggests that evolution could not be expected to produce the same outcome. Humans may not necessarily result a second time because evolution is a purposeless/directionless force that relies on random mutations. Richard Dawkins refers to this process of natural selection as “the blind watchmaker.”

The transitional or intermediate forms of life needed to accomplish the process of natural selection required, in Darwin’s own words, the “accumulation of infinitesimally small inherited modifications, each profitable to the preserved being” (The Origin of the Species, 74). The fossil record did not, however, provide the empirical support that Darwin wished for. He attributed the paucity of evidence to the incompleteness of the fossil record, but hoped that later discoveries would vindicate his theory.

Unfortunately for Darwin, the fossil record did not provide the evidence to support his theory, which led Stephen Jay Gould to admit that “All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt. Gradualists usually extract themselves from this dilemma by invoking the extreme imperfection of the fossil record” (The Panda’s Thumb, 189). Gradualism, while not supported by the fossil record, nevertheless remains the best explanation for the majority of evolutionists because they cannot think of a more plausible alternative. However, not entirely satisfied with the fossil record, Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge proposed a new theory for explaining both the fossil record and the present diversity of life called “punctuated equilibria/equilibrium.” This theory provided these paleontologists with an explanation for the patterns found in the fossil record.

The theory of punctuated equilibrium, coming from such eminent evolutionists, such as Gould (who often appeared on the television show, “The Simpsons”) and Eldredge, provides perhaps the most significant reason why Reformed theologians can affirm natural selection, but not natural selection in the Darwinian sense. After all, Darwin could not provide significant examples of natural selection that could be empirically tested, and so he relied on his argument by analogy. Darwinists insist that micromutations account for variability within a certain population of animals. In connection with this premise, natural selection directs evolutionary change. Ernst Mayr recognized that the Neo-Darwinian (synthetic) theory has not received universal approval from scientists. He writes:

A well-informed minority […] including such outstanding authorities as the geneticists Goldschmidt, the paleontologist Schindewolf, and the zoologists Jeannel, Cuénot, and Cannon, maintained until the 1950’s that neither evolution within species nor geographic speciation could explain the phenomena of “macroevolution,” or, as it is better called, transpecific evolution. These authors contended that the origin of new “types” and of new organs could not be explained by the known facts of genetics and systematics. As alternatives they advanced two explanations, both in conflict with the synthetic theory: saltations (the sudden origin of new types) and intrinsic (orthogenetic) trends. (Populations, Species, and Evolution, 351).

Mayr provides insight into a debate among evolutionists that maybe provides the most compelling reason why Reformed theologians, who have had little or no scientific training, should refrain from embracing the Neo-Darwinian version of origins.

Darwin’s gradualist model led him to confess, “if it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down” (Origin of the Species, 142). Darwin was absolutely correct, and that explains why various prominent evolutionists have received a great deal of criticism, and at times ridicule, for suggesting that Darwin’s theory of phyletic gradualism cannot explain complex structures and organisms (such as mammalian hair). The Berkeley geneticist, Richard Goldschmidt, argued that Darwin’s gradualist model could only explain variation within the species boundary. Far from abandoning evolution altogether, Goldschmidt claimed speciation must have occurred through large-scale jumps called macromutations, otherwise known as “quantum evolution.” This idea provided the answer to the bridgeless gap separating micro- and macroevolution. In his book, The Material Basis for Evolution, he argued for a type of “hopeful monster,” a new species with the capacity to survive and propagate. Goldschmidt’s theory was initially greeted with ridicule, but Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge took up his cause with their own theory of punctuated equilibrium. Eldredge describes the problem that Goldschmidt tried to address:

No wonder paleontologists shied away from evolution for so long. It never seemed to happen. Assiduous collecting up cliff faces yields zigzags, minor oscillations, and the very occasional slight accumulation of change — over millions of years, at a rate too slow to account for all the prodigious change that has occurred in evolutionary history. When we do see the introduction of evolutionary novelty, it usually shows up with a bang, and often with no firm evidence that the fossils did not evolve elsewhere! Evolution cannot forever be going on somewhere else. Yet that’s how the fossil record has struck many a forlorn paleontologist looking to learn something about evolution (Reinventing Darwin, 95).

In other words, Eldredge and Gould noticed two features in the fossil record that were inconsistent with Darwinian gradualism. First, most species show no directional change; and, second, new species abruptly appear in the fossil record. Natural selection cannot account for these peculiarities, argued Eldredge and Gould.

In light of these problems with the modern Darwinian synthesis, Gould asked in the title of his now (in)famous article, “Is a New and General Theory of Evolution Emerging?” In this article Gould writes:

I well remember how the synthetic theory beguiled me with its unifying power when I was a graduate student in the mid-1960’s. Since then I have been watching it slowly unravel as a universal description of evolution. The molecular assault came first, followed quickly by renewed attention to unorthodox theories of speciation and by challenges at the level of macroevolution itself. I have been reluctant to admit it – since beguiling is often forever – but if Mayr’s characterization of the synthetic theory is accurate, then that theory, as a general proposition, is effectively dead, despite its persistence as text-book orthodoxy (p. 120).

As in the case of Goldschmidt, this proposal was met with a good deal of criticism. Gradualists responded that adaptive macromutations are impossible and have nothing to do with evolution. Thus, gradualists like Dawkins, who are not persuaded by the theory of punctuated equilibria, retained their belief that evolution by micromutation is the only viable alternative. Slow, gradual evolution by a combination of mutations (not “macromutations”) acting concurrently with natural selection provides the best explanation for the natural world according to the majority of Darwinists.

Punctuated equilibrium, with its claim of stasis, represents a significant departure from the standard gradualistic model that Darwin pioneered. Some scientists, even Dawkins himself, have been careful to downplay the significance of this debate. Dawkins called it a “minor dispute” that “has been blown up to give the impression that Darwinism’s foundations are quivering” (A Devil’s Chaplain, 199). But Dawkins is clearly downplaying the significance of this debate so that creationists will have one less weapon in their arsenal. Indeed, the debate warranted a book by philosopher of science, Kim Sterelny, titled Dawkins Vs. Gould: Survival of the Fittest (Cambridge: Icon Books, 2001). The very emergence of punctuated equilibrium (evolution by “jerks”) in opposition to phyletic gradualism (evolution by “creeps”) suggests that the Neo-Darwinian synthesis is far from proven.

Some Reformed theologians have perhaps been a little too eager to accept the claims of the Neo-Darwinian synthesis without understanding properly the lively debate among evolutionists on the actual mechanism of fully naturalistic evolution. Before we try to synthesize our theology with Darwinian evolution, we should at least understand the various models that we’re faced with, if we insist on making a choice between the two major schools of thought.

For my part, the contrasting models above fail to persuade me that I need to baptize Darwinian evolution with certain Christian truths that are non-negotiable…because, after all, what is negotiable and non-negotiable is a slippery slope, if history tells us anything.

Alternatives to Changing the Belgic Confession?

Wes Bredenhof

14Theistic evolution is a significant doctrinal challenge facing the Canadian Reformed Churches. When I say “theistic evolution” I mean such ideas as the biblical Adam and Eve sharing an ancestry with primates. I mean such ideas as God bringing Adam and Eve into existence in the wombs of hominid (human-like creatures) females, instead of through immediate creation with physical dust of the earth. These ideas exist in the Canadian Reformed Churches and to allow them to continue will spell the death of biblical orthodoxy for us.

There is a proposal circulating at the moment which targets this false teaching. The proposal seeks to do that by having General Synod 2016 make a change to article 14 of the Belgic Confession. This change would explicitly rule out the ideas mentioned above, making clear that these notions have no place in Reformed churches which submit to God’s Word.

It is fair to say that a majority of Canadian Reformed members would agree that this teaching is wrong and dangerous. Were a survey to be conducted, I am confident that most of our people would agree that theistic evolution should have no place in the Canadian Reformed Churches. Yet, as the proposal illustrates, we have this situation where it currently does have a place. We have a problem in that this teaching has been allowed to go on and consequently more people are being confused or led astray by it. But how do we deal with this serious issue? For whatever reason, there is some reluctance to change the Belgic Confession. We would rather pursue other alternatives first before doing something as momentous as what this overture is proposing. In this post, I want to briefly explore four of the most commonly mentioned alternatives. At the end, it will be clear that, realistically speaking, there is no other choice.

Discipline?

Some have argued that a change to the Belgic Confession should not be necessary. Instead, what needs to happen is that those who are teaching theistic evolution should be placed under discipline. The confessions are clear enough as they are and it’s obvious that this teaching is unorthodox. Churches just need to muster the courage to discipline the members who are denying what we confess. This argument was made by Irish pastor Martyn McGeown in a recent issue of the Protestant Reformed magazine, The Standard Bearer, as he commented on the BC 14 proposal adopted by Classis Ontario West of March 11, 2015. It’s easy for Rev. McGeown to stand on the sidelines across the pond and make this argument. Rev. McGeown isn’t Canadian Reformed and doesn’t understand the gravity of the situation in which we find ourselves here. I doubt any outsider can comment responsibly on what we’re facing.

We are facing a situation where there is now considerable confusion about whether this teaching conflicts with the Three Forms of Unity. This uncertainty exists even amongst some who are office bearers. In my last installment, I quoted from a Canadian Reformed pastor who affirmed that we need to have ecclesiastical clarity on whether theistic evolution is outside the bounds of the Three Forms of Unity. At least one other pastor has publically opined that those accused of teaching this are not really teaching this at all, thus there’s no problem that needs to be addressed. How can discipline take place when there is so much confusion and uncertainty in our churches about whether the promotion of theistic evolution is happening and whether it warrants discipline? Moreover, discipline does not address others who, while themselves not amenable to theistic evolution, think it should be tolerated within our Reformed churches. Finally, the proposal itself mentions that discipline has limitations when dealing with a widespread doctrinal challenge: in our churches, discipline is typically dealt with in closed session at ecclesiastical assemblies and decisions rendered are often considered to be binding only in that particular case – after all, how can a discipline decision made in closed session be publically binding upon the whole federation? (See Van Oene, With Common Consent, pages 154 & 213). Even if one only takes into account the office bearers and their awareness of these sorts of decisions made in closed session, what happens when a discipline case is only appealed up to the classis or regional synod level? Only the office bearers in that classical or synodical region might be aware of the decision, and then only the currently serving office bearers. This approach simply does not work in our context. We need an official binding statement made in public that applies right across the federation.

A Doctrinal Statement?

Others might be inclined to say that we should have a doctrinal statement from Synod, rather than a change in the Belgic Confession. What this alternative involves is Synod issuing a statement or position paper which condemns the false teachings we’re currently faced with. One could perhaps envision Synod 2016 coming out with a point by point refutation of the errors of theistic evolution, and a corresponding point by point statement of what the Bible teaches about human origins.

All I really need to say here are two words: “Nine Points.” If those words don’t ring a bell, the Nine Points of Schererville were issued by a URCNA Synod in response to the false teachings of the Federal Vision movement. These Nine Points (followed later by Fifteen Points at the next URC Synod) created confusion and controversy in the URCNA, and consternation amongst many in our churches. Many CanRC observers thought that this “extra-confessional” statement was all too reminiscent of what happened in the Netherlands before and during the Liberation of 1944.  Extra-confessional synodical statements were made binding and this was a major cause of the Liberation.

In view of the reception of the Nine Points among us, it is really reasonable to expect a CanRC synod to issue a doctrinal statement or position paper? If that should somehow happen, would it actually bring clarity? What would be the status of such a statement? Would office bearers be expected to subscribe to it? Would it be confessional or not? If not, could it still be used to prosecute false teachers in our churches?

All of the questions asked about the Nine Points would be asked here too and we would be faced with an unhelpful quagmire. This is obviously a non-starter for our churches. We have to be realistic. Because of our history, we just don’t “do” doctrinal statements or position papers. Moreover, there are many issues that might warrant a position paper: divorce and remarriage, homosexuality, Christian education, and so on. There’s really only one issue that would truly benefit from a change to our confessions, and that’s this issue of theistic evolution.

A Footnote?

Similar to the doctrinal statement approach is the idea of a footnote added to article 14, or perhaps article 12. Rev. Clarence (a.k.a. “Klaas”) Stam floated this idea in an article in the April 20, 2015 issue of Clarion. At first glance this sounds like a fine way to avoid changing the text of the Confession while still bringing clarity to the issue at hand. However, it actually confuses things even more and raises more questions than it answers. Questions like: what would be the status of such a footnote? Does anybody know what the status of our one existing footnote is (in BC 36)? When office bearers sign the Form of Subscription, would they subscribe to this new footnote? When members of the congregation make Public Profession of Faith, do they express commitment not only to the Three Forms of Unity, but also to this proposed footnote? Can a member be placed under discipline for teaching something contrary to a footnote? If it’s proposed to make such a footnote binding in any way, wouldn’t it die under the protest of “extra-confessional binding”?

All those questions need clear answers before a footnote is a reasonable alternative. I think we can all recognize that, like a doctrinal statement, any footnote proposal is not going to be well-received in the Canadian Reformed Churches. Not only are there all those questions, but there really is no precedent for it — the one existing footnote (in BC 36) did not appear in response to a serious doctrinal challenge. There is, however, a precedent for responding to false teaching by amending the Confession. Doing this leaves absolutely no ambiguity in terms of status. It really is the only way forward for the Canadian Reformed Churches.

A Study Committee?

Making a substantial change to the Belgic Confession is not a light matter – it should never be done recklessly or on a whim. Adding or taking away from articles should be done soberly and with careful reflection. Consequently, some might say that this proposal is moving too quickly. Rather than make a change right now, Synod 2016 should appoint a committee (perhaps a church) to study the matter and then report to Synod 2019 with analysis and recommendations.

In response, this proposal was not developed on a whim. Those involved with producing it (myself included) have been addressing these issues for several years already. We’ve had to do that because this false teaching has been circulating in our churches for no short period of time. There is an urgent need to address this unbelief sooner rather than later. Appointing a study committee will allow yet more time for these wrong ideas to dig deeper roots in our circles. Rather than giving that time, the appropriate response is to take action now by making this well-considered change to the Confession.

Furthermore, appointing a study committee dignifies this teaching and could give the impression that it is one where Christians might legitimately disagree with one another. It could be perceived as saying that Scripture is not really clear on the matter. However, there are certain issues where the biblical lines are clear and discussion is inappropriate. An analogy might help to make this clear.

Imagine if a group of people in our churches started teaching that celibate homosexual relationships fall within the bounds of the Reformed faith. After all, there is no place in our Reformed confessions that explicitly and obviously rule out such relationships. Should we appoint a study committee to look into this? Isn’t Scripture clear that such relationships are unacceptable in the sight of God? Why would we dignify an unbelieving approach to Scripture by appointing a study committee on such a matter? This is what our Dutch sister churches did by appointing a study committee on women in office. If Scripture is clear, there is nothing to study. There is only the call to believe what God’s Word plainly says. It is as clear from God’s Word that Adam and Eve were created from literal dust (with no evolutionary history) as it is that homosexual relationships are illicit.

Conclusion

Should this proposal (or another like it) find its way to Synod 2016, it will be assigned to an advisory committee. It could happen that the advisory committee looks at this sort of proposal and decides that it is not the best answer to the problem facing us. An advisory committee could advance a different approach. However, I maintain that there is no other viable or helpful way to address the issue of theistic evolution at this stage of the debate in the Canadian Reformed Churches. What we need is a stand that is both clear and unambiguous in its status in our churches — and we need it sooner rather than later. In short, we must make this change to article 14 at Synod 2016.

Should We Change the Belgic Confession?

Wes Bredenhof

There is currently a proposal circulating in our churches regarding article 14 of the Belgic Confession. This proposal, aimed for the floor of Synod 2016, seeks to address theistic evolution by making a change to the opening of article 14. This change will ensure that theistic evolution is officially recognized as unbiblical by our churches. Last week, I addressed those who might instinctively recoil at the thought of changing our beloved Belgic Confession. Can we actually make any substantial changes? As we saw, not only is this permissible in principle (and even necessary at times), but in fact it has happened several times throughout the 454 year history of the Confession, even as recently as 1983. The CanRC Belgic Confession in 2015 is quite different than the Belgic Confession first written in 1561.   I concluded that the question is not “Can the Confession be changed?” The question needs to be: “Should the Confession be changed?” That’s the question I want to address in this post.

A Weighty Argument

One of the weightiest arguments against making the proposed change is that our Three Forms of Unity are already clear on the matter. For example, QA 7 of the Heidelberg Catechism clearly says that Adam and Eve were our first parents. In its current formulation, article 14 of the Confession says that God “created man of dust from the ground.” Some would argue that these statements, especially taken together, settle the matter once and for all. Our current confessions already rule out such notions as Adam and Eve sharing ancestry with primates. Why make a change when our existing Three Forms of Unity are already sufficient?

In ground 4, the proposal acknowledges that, taken in the right way, our existing Three Forms of Unity should rule out any notions of theistic evolution. When the Catechism was first written, we can say with confidence that “first parents” meant what it appears to mean. When the Belgic Confession was first written “dust from the ground,” it meant what Calvin understood: Adam’s “dead body was formed out of the dust of the earth.”[1] Before the moment described in Genesis 2:7, there was absolutely no man-like creature, human or hominid (some kind of biological pre-cursor to man with an evolutionary history). In Genesis 2:7, a creature was formed from literal inanimate dust, God breathed life into his nostrils, and only then he became a living being. For centuries, orthodox Reformed confessors have recognized this as the plain meaning of the first sentence of article 14.

Laying Out the Problem

Yet here we are in 2015 dealing with this problem in our churches. And there is obviously a problem. Let me lay it out. We have a situation where some of us are saying that our confessions clearly rule out theistic evolution: as a Reformed confessor you cannot say that the creature who became Adam came into existence through the meeting of a hominid sperm and a hominid egg, nor can you say that the creature who became Eve was at one point a hominid toddler bouncing on her hominid father’s knee. You cannot say that Adam and Eve, as biological creatures, had parents or grandparents. I reckon that all this is correct and I have made similar assertions.

However, on the other hand, we have Reformed Academic saying things like this (see original source here):

We are all in agreement with all of Scripture and the Reformed confessions, including notably that Adam and Eve were real humans, in a real Eden with real trees (including a real tree of the knowledge of good and evil), and upon a real temptation by the real devil in the form of a real snake, really sinned, so there was a real Fall.

Statements like this are intended to put us all at ease. In essence, they’re saying, “Look, there’s no issue here. We believe the Reformed confessions too. We even believe in a real historical Adam who was the first human being. What’s the problem?”

The problem is outlined in the BC 14 proposal. The problem is that a CanRC scientist involved with Reformed Academic is on public record (see here) as being a supporter of evolution, by which is meant, “biologically, Homo Sapiens evolved through natural processes from ancestral forms in common with primates.”  If he is not a theistic evolutionist (as he claims), why has he never protested his inclusion on this list of “Prominent Christians Who Support Evolution”?  The problem is when another CanRC scientist argues publically that even our Lord Jesus, as a true human being, shared a common ancestry with chimpanzees (see here). The problem is that these scientists are outspoken and influential representatives of this way of thinking. They are regarded as leaders not only in their fields, but in the churches – they have even served as office bearers. The problem is when Reformed Academic and a fair number of others in our churches think that the above-mentioned views are tolerable — their voices can be heard loud and clear on social media.  The problem is further evidenced when the above-mentioned scientists refuse to answer publically five carefully worded questions posed by fellow CanRC scientist Dr. John Byl (see the bottom of this post).  If they’re not theistic evolutionists (or evolutionary creationists, or whatever the nom du jour), why not just give clear answers to these questions and be done with it?  There is obviously a pervasive multi-faceted problem regarding origins and it is not going away. Our church federation is not helped by anyone, especially those in leadership positions, naively pretending that there is little or no problem.  We need to deal with it. The question is: what is the best way to deal with it?

Moving Forward with Eyes Wide Open

First, we need to see that proponents of theistic evolution might readily agree that Adam and Eve are our first parents, as stated in QA 7 of the Catechism. Reformed Academic says that they have zero problem with that – rather, they affirm it wholeheartedly. But we need to ask: what would they mean when they say that? A theistic evolutionist would mean that Adam and Eve were the first Homo sapiens, and that they were endowed with the image of God in some fashion. This endowment supposedly makes them our “first parents” in the sense of being the first humans (the first Homo sapiens), although they are not our first parents in a purely biological sense. This is one way that some associated with Reformed Academic and others can insist that their views fall within the bounds of the Reformed confessions in their current state.

There is also another way. Proponents of theistic evolution might readily agree that man was created from dust, as the Belgic Confession says in article 14. Reformed Academic says that they have no problem with that either. But what do they mean when they affirm what BC 14 says? They could mean that humans are material and descended from lowly origins. They are descended from earlier life-forms (hominids) who may have originally emerged from the dust or dirt of the earth. In other words, to put it technically, the current wording of article 14, “dust from the ground” could still be understood mediately, as if the dust is indeed at the most remote origins of humans, but not the immediate material cause of Adam and Eve. In this way, theistic evolutionists can claim with a straight face that they maintain the Reformed confessions all the while holding something contrary to the teaching of Scripture. Whether we like it or not, even if we insist that what they’re saying is contrary to the true meaning of the Three Forms of Unity, our existing wording is being perceived as leaving this kind of “wiggle room.” That perception accounts for the present confusion in our churches about this matter.

Our situation is somewhat analogous to the situation with the Remonstrants before the Synod of Dort 1618-19. It could have been argued that the Heidelberg Catechism and the Belgic Confession were sufficiently clear to deal with the theology of the Remonstrants. The problem was that Arminius himself maintained that he was being faithful to the Confessions. Roger Nicole writes:

His attitude toward confessional standards was open to question, for a theologian of his caliber must have realized that there was a substantial rift between his views and the system of teaching as well as the express utterances of the Heidelberg Catechism and the Belgic Confession. Nevertheless, he paraded under the flag of allegiance and under the vows of conformity from the time of his ordination to his death. He repeatedly promised not to teach anything from the pulpit or the university chair which might be out of keeping with the standards.[2]

It was eventually recognized that the language of the Catechism and the Confession were often being reinterpreted to suit Remonstrant ends. Clarification was needed – Arminianism had to be clearly ruled out. The confusion was resolved by the Synod of Dort. We see the same confusion happening in our day with those advocating for theistic evolution and its toleration. Arguments and assertions are made that our confessions can be interpreted in such a way as to accommodate theistic evolution. In this present context, we need to have an unambiguously clear statement that theistic evolution is outside the bounds of biblical orthodoxy.

Despite the foregoing, even if the existing wording of our confessions is deemed sufficient, the churches need to know this officially, via some decision of an ecclesiastical assembly. In a discussion at Reformed Academic (see here), Rev. John van Popta made the same point:

I do think, however, that the teaching that Adam and therefore Jesus Christ share ancestry with “primitive parents” is a teaching that the church should examine and decide whether or not it falls within the pale of orthodoxy.

Naturally, given the widespread nature of this false teaching, it would be best to have this examination and decision come from our broadest assembly, namely a general synod. But if our broadest assembly is going to clear up the confusion in any helpful manner at all, it needs to have the matter put on its agenda in an ecclesiastical way. Whatever one might think about the idea of changing article 14, it remains that this proposal would put the matter on the agenda of a synod.  A synod could then decide the best way to deal with it for the good of our federation.

Conclusion

Indeed, the best way to tackle the issue at hand is to make the proposed change to article 14. Doing this has strong historical precedent. It is a proven way to deal with serious doctrinal errors in Reformed churches. Moreover, any other options are not presently realistic or helpful (more on that next time). Whatever we do, as Canadian Reformed Churches, we cannot let this matter rest and allow this false teaching to continue unarrested. The need for a clear message is urgent. To adapt the old adage: all it takes for false teaching to triumph is for faithful men to do nothing. It is high time for faithful men to do something bold to put the brakes on this dangerous and evil error in our midst.

[1] Calvin, Commentary Upon the Book of Genesis (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979), 112.

[2] Quoted by Louis Praamsma, “The Background of the Arminian Controversy,” in P. Y. De Jong (ed.), Crisis in the Reformed Churches: Essays in Commemoration of the Great Synod of Dort 1618-19 (Grandville: Reformed Fellowship, 2008 reprint), 46.