BioLogos and Evolutionary Creation
Note: I am aware of the intense feelings and commitments that some evangelicals hold towards particular views of creation. By even addressing this issue I am potentially alienating some readers, but I hope that this information might prove either helpful or at least interesting as Christians engage with the intersection between science and faith.
Within the evangelical community there are a few topics that by the very mention of a word can bring about a firestorm of controversy. One of these is the scientific theory of evolution. Depending on your understanding of what the theory involves and how (or whether) it relates to scripture, your reaction to seeing the word "evolution" on your screen may have been anywhere from indifference to questioning the validity of my faith. It would be an understatement to suggest that evangelicalism has has a complex relationship with evolutionary theory since the famous Scopes Monkey Trial, and likely quite earlier. But despite the controversy involved, it is a topic worthy of discussion because it touches on questions of both science and faith. And, if Christians are willing to acknowledge that a diversity of approaches exist and are held by sincere believers, I believe that such discussions can be held. Because my training is in theology and not science, I am not well equipped to answer questions on the scientific side of things. I will reserve a fuller discussion of theology for a later date (there is a lot to cover).
Responses to Scientific Consensus
What I will say is that there is widespread consensus in the scientific community (and particularly within the biological sciences) that evolutionary theory is the most plausible explanation for data found in the fossil record and in genetics. Christians who wish to participate in the wider public dialogue about faith and science must accept that this consensus exists, regardless of whether they agree with it or not. At the risk of over-simplification, where Christians tend to differ is in how interpretive method and interpretive priority (another topic for further discussion) inform their response. The options in response to scientific consensus regarding evolutionary theory are as follows:
Argue that the consensus of the scientific community is wrong on the data.
Argue that a surface-level reading of the creation narratives should take priority over scientific consensus.
Argue that a surface-level reading of the creation narratives can be reconciled with the scientific consensus.
Argue that the creation narratives should be read in light of their literary genre, cultural origins and apparent theological intent, separate from concerns about scientific theory.
Argue that the scriptures are wrong and should be discarded as trustworthy sources of information.
I hope that if you know me or have read other posts on the website, you would recognize that I do not believe in option 5. I affirm that the scriptures are valid in their teaching about and revelation of the triune God. However, I also do not affirm the first two options either. I am inclined to trust the consensus of the scientific community on this matter, much like I am inclined to trust medical officials on the efficacy of vaccines or engineers on how to design bridges that will not collapse. Trust in this data does not mean that I have to adhere to every philosophical presupposition held by any individual scientist (for example: altheistic materialism) but it does mean that, as someone who is not trained in the field, I must accept the expertise of others. A major problem with rejecting scientific consensus in this particular area is that it breeds mistrust in other areas. One's beliefs about how old the earth is are (largely) a private issue. But when someone chooses to believe that doctors are lying about vaccines, a private view becomes a public health issue. A fuller discussion of this topic is needed, but for the present I will say that my current preference is option 4. I strongly believe that the creation narratives speak about God and his relation to the world. But a careful reading of these texts comes through an awareness of the society in which they were written and the expectations that the first readers brought to the texts.
One Way to Affirm Science and Faith
One helpful resource that I have found in this discussion is BioLogos, and organization founded by Dr. Francis Collins (director of the National Institutes of Health, leader of the Human Genome Project, and author of The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief). Guest content on the BioLogos website has been provided by such pastor-theologians as Timothy Keller and N.T. Wright, not to mention a large number of Christians involved in both theology and the sciences. Content on the website is designed with the average reader in mind rather than the theologian or the scientist, which is helpful because it is not just scientists and theologians who struggle with how to understand their faith.
BioLogos espouses a view known as "evolutionary creation" which affirms mainstream scientific findings on biological evolution and the geological history of the earth. It does so while maintaining a belief in God as the redeeming creator of the universe whose heart is revealed most clearly in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus.
As someone who finds approaches such as Young Earth Creationism ('Answers in Genesis') problematic in both their rejection of scientific consensus and inattention to issues of literary genre in interpreting the biblical texts, I have found the work of BioLogos to be remarkably refreshing, interesting and even encouraging over the years that I have been following its website.
Articles straight from the BioLogos website can speak better for the specific nuances of theology and biology that their authors hold, and the following are a good representative sample:
How is Evolutionary Creation different from Evolutionism, Intelligent Design, and Creationism?
How Could Humans Have Evolved and Still Be in the Image of God?
Additional helpful topics can be found on their "Common Questions" page
It is my hope that this resource will prove helpful or at least interesting, regardless of which of the five approaches from above that you take.