Partly in honour of Charles Darwin’s 200th annivesary, the movie Creation has recently been made available in North America. I suspect there will be many who use the occasion to re-examine Darwin’s work and theories. Personally, my first encounter with Darwin’s evolutionary theory was in high school and this encounter led to a mild crisis of faith. The issue for me wasn’t about any particular detail of his theory; but that the theory was put in the context of believing the truth of the Holy Bible or Darwin’s theory. Some members of the Presbyterian church I attended saw it as a clear choice between choosing the literal truth given by revelation from God through the prophet Moses, or some false secular teaching that was the result of man’s vanity.
On the other hand, the school’s assumed position was to accept the modern scientific “proof” of evolution as undisputed truth, and those who even questioned it were considered fools and ignoramuses. Although they called evolution a theory, which means it is an hypothesis (and unproven), it was always accepted as scientific fact (which is a proven scientific truth). The problem was that the dictionaries themselves give definitions of “theory” that are nearly contradictory. What was a student to believe? In the end I concluded that no one made a convincing case that disproved the other.
I knew and experienced life with God so I concluded that all that was theologically required in this matter was that I believe that God was Creator. Whether God’s means of creation was slow, as in evolution, or quick, as in the big bang theory, could be left to better scientific minds to sort through. This compromise view worked for me for many years and even as a young pastor giving advice to students, this answer seemed to work.
Although I knew some scientists felt that evolution somehow disproved God, the fact that some Nobel Prize-winning scientists stood as believers in God the Creator, even though they also believed in the evolutionary process, only reinforced my view that the middle way was the best way to avoid needless and seemingly irresolvable controversy. As long as evolution was thought of as merely descriptive of the means, the middle way seemed to be the way to go.
But when I discovered that for some it was not merely a description of the means that creatures change and adapt but was used to promote a philosophy of life and a worldview that was distinct and contrary to any idea of being the work of a Creator, I was concerned. When the issue changes from a matter of biology to a matter of theology then the whole understanding of science also changes. It transforms from discovering God’s thoughts to promoting the thought that there was no Creator but only a random process. If this philosophical Darwinism is true then life is without purpose and worship is idiotic and this must be vigorously rejected.
If various proponents of Darwinism in its various forms seem uncertain of what the conclusions prove, no doubt it was because I think Darwin himself was somewhat conflicted. One of the personal things in Darwin’s life that led him to scepticism was the death of his 10-year-old daughter, Annie. He had pleaded with God to spare her and promised to commit his life whole-heartedly to God if she was spared. This however, was not God’s purpose and the girl died. Afterward, Darwin was never the same. This disappointment in God may have led to unnecessary conclusions by some that there is no God. Perhaps, in fact, creation and evolution do not need to be an either/or proposition.
I suspect for Darwin himself the seemingly inextricable relationship between the biological and theological factors was painful. The film, based on research from personal family correspondence, makes this clear since the family was torn theologically. His wife, Emma, was a devout Christian who believed the only way to heaven was to trust in God. Charles was at best a sceptic as the following excerpt makes clear. Randal Keynes, Darwin’s great-great-grandson, wrote the book upon which the movie is based. He told a Los Angeles Times reporter, “My great-grandfather was agnostic. Some of [his family] were Christian. Some [were] agnostic. None were atheists.”
In the Origin of Species, Darwin acknowledges a Creator. He writes of his theory: “There is grandeur in this view of life with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one.”
There will no doubt be renewed discussion and much acrimony around the topic, which may stir up hurtful old controversies. That, I suppose, will at least prove that whatever you think about evolution affecting various parts of creation, it hasn’t much affected the wickedness and pride of the human heart. Let us pray that the black hood of prejudice will not cover the head of science and that the blindfold of ignorance will not keep out the light of discovery from the eyes of faith. John Calvin, our theological forefather, did not see science as necessarily opposed to faith. It is right and proper, Calvin maintains, to study the laws and motions of the heavenly bodies.
Astronomy leads to the praise of God’s wisdom and majesty. God is sovereign in His gifts and not bound to any necessity of nature. He has foreordained all things by His eternal decree. He also said: Knowledge of the sciences is so much smoke apart from the heavenly science of Christ.
May we, Calvin’s descendents, also ask the Spirit of truth to lead us into the wisdom that gives glory to God and in humility stand in amazement at all He has made and the way He has made it, whatever we believe the process to have been.
