Does Darwin`s Theory Of Evolution Intrinsically Contradict Christian Scripture?

Thomas Henry Huxley in Man's Place in Nature (1863) first suggested the anatomical similarities between humans and apes, Darwin was not the first to suggest the theory of evolution, but was the figure to popularise it. The theory of evolution states that beneficial characteristics are more likely to be passed to offspring, resulting in a slow change of species diversity (Darwin [1859] 2006: 65). "[Darwin himself was] keenly aware of the political, social and religious implications of his new idea. religion especially, appeared to have much to lose" (Raymo 1998: 163). Although heavily critical of the Bible as a historical text, Darwin did not identify as an atheist stating "the mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble by us; and I for one must be content to remain an Agnostic" (Darwin 1958: 92). It is important to note that Darwin's theory, although often cited in the religion vs. science argument, is not rebuked by the Catholic Church nor by the many theistic evolutionists (figure 1) whom can reconcile traditional scri pture with Darwin's theory. Often misunderstood, the theory of evolution is held in contempt by fundamental Christians; "The bible prophetically warns that in the last days false teachers will introduce lies among the people... Such a lie is among us. That lie is evolution" (Ham 2007: 1).

To read the Bible as a series of allegories suggests one may not be clear in which parts direct truths are being told, which parts are literal truth and which are metaphor. Obviously, there can be no conclusive answer to this, which leads many to practice the literal interpretation. The Bible itself does not claim to be inerrant, from Timothy one can conclude that although written at the hands of man and therefore subject to his infallibility, the Bible is telling spiritual truths inspired by God "All scri pture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness" (Timothy 3:16). To analyse the credibility of Judaeo-Christian scri ptures suggests one must take a literal interpretation of the Bible. Theistic evolutionists believe all life has indeed evolved and changed but that God was the driving force behind the process, meaning any significant scri pture contradictory to this can be expelled as mere mythology. Therefore allowing much of the Bible to be considered as a teaching-tool and not as fundamental theological truths, of which, the latter would conflict with Darwin's theory of evolution. As suggested "Genesis is poetry, it's to be seen as a hymn" (Internet Source 2), not literal truths. So, does Darwin's theory intrinsically contradict a literal interpretation of the Bible?

The historical importance of the Bible cannot be downplayed, "going back to the Babylonian Exile (587-538 B.C.) of the ancient Jews. Disposed of their ancient traditions and writings as a means by which they could maintain their spiritual and national identity. The Torah, the law especially as given in the first books (the Pentateuch) of the Bible, thus became a history and a prescri ption, as well as a promise of God's love and future concern: a salvation history" (Dorrien 2008: 134). scri pture therefore had special status and had to be truth, an attitude adopted by the early Christians. To read this passage literally suggests two things that are in direct opposition to evolution; firstly, that humanity was created in the image of God and secondly, human uniqueness. Being 'made in the image of God' is a key idea in Christian theology, humanity is the representation of God on earth, "God makes us valuable. And God can impact the world through us, not because we are examples of physical perfection, but because we are human souls carrying about the love of God within us. We matter because He matters" (Internet Source 2). One can assume that Genesis is not discussing physical similarity to God, but rather the abilities humanity share in God's image such as reason, language and love. If one understand evolution as removing the image of God in humanity, then this suggests interesting notions for the applications of sovereignty of life; it is a sin to murder as all life is made in the image of God, but if we have evolved without this image then what does that state about the importance of life? A literalist may state that Adam and Eve are created in God's image and therefore any suggestion of evolution is in direct contradiction with Genesis, however "you say that development drives out the creator: but you assert that God made and yet you know that you yourself were originally a little piece of matter no bigger than this pencil case" (Huxley 1990: 20). Demonstrating how evolution is present from birth to death, one's physical form undoubtedly changes over a human lifespan, so perhaps the notion of God's image is focused more on the unique abilities given by God. If we understand God's image in this manner, it seems highly plausible that the spiritual characteristics can be present throughout humanity's evolutionary process.

As presented in Genesis, man is made last and is special and unique from the animal kingdom. Evolution however, states that mankind is the product of slow adaptations and changes. Suggesting that mankind finds it origins and heritage in the animal kingdom in which the Bible teaches one has dominion. Being unique from the rest of creation is critical in understanding wider theology, if God did not create humanity separate, what does this suggest for our hierarchical status? If God had not created humanity in His image, what would this suggest for sexuality, kinship and evil? "We humans, who are in some way made in Gods image, are a special and privileged part of God's creation. We are not just animals. it is an essential part of traditional Christian theology, as articulated by Augustine of hippo" (Internet Source 3). The superiority of man comes from the unique soul-bearing ability, Saint Augustine states "Man`s excellence consists in the fact that God made him to His own image by giving him an intellectual soul, which raises him above the beasts of the field" (Internet source 4). Furthermore Aquinas believes the ability to understand and know God is the trait that separates humanity from lesser animals. However, evolution is suggesting that mankind finds its origins in the 'beasts of the field', rather than by divine creation. Studies of animal behaviour show that ability is present in intellectually higher species to show emotions, learn language and have basic reasoning response. Christian neuroscientist Malcolm Jeeves writes that "any attempt to set down a clear demarcation between the reasoning abilities of nonhuman primates and humans is found to have become blurred" (2011: 300) demonstrating that reason is not a trait unique to humanity.

To read the Bible as a literalist may suggest an incompatibility with evolution and the creation of Adam and Eve, however, one may find answer in the guiding hand of God. Perhaps the creation of Adam and Eve is pointing to the ex-nihilo potential of humanity, to understand Genesis metaphorically and allow for evolution dictates that God may not have created humanity as a talking, walking, fully formed kind, but rather with the potential to develop. Genesis states Eve was formed from the body of Adam (2:22), suggesting a creation of mankind 'as is', which obviously directly contradicts evolution. Equally, the theistic evolutionist opinion presents problems for the understanding of sin. If Adam and Eve were indeed formed ex-nihilo as developmental beings, then the story of the fall and the fundamental explanation for evil is called into question.

Without Adam being considered a fully formed being at the beginning of humanity, there could be no ethical consciousness as dictated by mankind's origins in Darwin's theory of evolution, meaning no lapse in morality that resulted in the fall. The principle theme of the Bible runs from creation, to fall and ending in redemption, all critical for understanding Christian theology. Without the fall, there would be no need for God to send His only son in sacrifice for man's original sin as inherited by Adam. Understanding Adam as a being at the beginning of humanity's evolutionary process and therefore lacking moral functions means there could be no original sin committed; resulting in Christ's sacrifice being unnecessary. "Christianity has fought, still fights, and will fight science to the desperate end over evolution, because evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus` earthly life was supposedly made necessary. Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the son of God. If Jesus was not the redeemer who died for our sins and this is what evolution means, then Christianity is nothing" (Bozarth 1978: 30).

Evolution therefore does not suggest man's sin has come from directly disobeying God, but rather that man is removed from blame as it is a result of our physiological nature, "evolution is inconsistent with the Christian belief that man is indeed fallen and in need of a saviour" (Martin and Vaughn 2007: 402). Equally, one can derive that morality is just the culmination of natural selection and situation ethics designed to help the survival of our species (Dawkin 1989: 66). One may assume a preoccupation with the morality of humanity placing higher importance on personal ethics rather than from God as an ultimate source of meaning. The Bible teaches moral truths are absolutes given directly by God (Exodus 20:1-17). Perhaps the underlying message of the conflict of creationism and evolution is the suggestion of the fallibility of the Bible. Without Genesis, the implication is that God created an imperfect world and that the evils of death and suffering where part of His original creation. "If the Bible was wrong in the very first chapter of Genesis, then the veracity of the entire enterprise was called into question. Evolution was not just a scientific theory, it was a bombshell." (Raymo 1998: 138). However, as previously explored, one can understand the Bible as a series of metaphorical tales rather than scientific truths, conveying deeper theological truths through mythology. Allowing the way for theistic evolution, God still has an 'active' part to play in creation directing evolution. In Genesis, the word of God begins creation, for a literal interpretation one may expect to read 'let there be and over a very slow developmental and evolutionary process it was created'. However, as demonstrated this does not present the same level of simplicity for a readership spreading over thousands of years and cultures. To read scri pture through allegories allows for much of the intrinsic evolutionary/Biblical conflict to be resolved.

"He is not an impersonal God, planning all beforehand and then letting it happen, but He is actively involved in seeing that things happen as they should.The point here is, that it really doesn't matter what the science may turn out to be, God is going to win" (Ruse 2004: 93). However, an 'actively involved' God presents fundamental issues with freewill, does God control everything to such an extent that everything is the outcome of divine will? Equally, it questions the nature of natural evil. "If God so controls things that humans appeared despite the improbability, then is God also responsible for such things as bad motivations? Is this compatible with the God as the father, as is claimed by Christians. If God can slip into produce the right quantum events when mutation pointing to humankind is needed, why can He not likewise slip in to prevent the wrong quantum event when a mutation causing great pain and unhappiness is about to occur? God gets credit for producing intelligence. Why should God not also get blamed for producing Sickle-cell anaemia?" (Ruse 2004: 92). If God is actively involved in His creation, then He must be responsible for the natural evils also, presenting one of the most fundamental questions in the theology of sin as demonstrated by the Epicurus riddle. God as a guiding hand of evolution must choose to commit natural evils in His world, which in turn conflicts with a traditional scri ptural deity as an all loving being. Moreover, to what extent can one understand God as the driving force of evolution? Evolution is present in antibiotic resistance, bacteria develops a resistance to the drugs administered and therefore results in a more difficult clinical application (Charlesworth 2006). Under the theistic evolutionist opinion, God is actively choosing to inflict greater hardship to the sick. Darwinian evolution is natural selection, survival of the fittest that facilitates individuals to pass on genes to their offspring (Howard 2001). Genes that present a disadvantage are lost through negative selection and genes that are advantageous are maintained with positive selection (Charlesworth 2006). This process is driven by mutation, constantly changing genes for better or for worse that results in the evolution of individuals better adapted to survive. Evolution cannot be the survival of the fittest if God is the guiding hand. Added to this is the fact that offspring are the result of two reproductive partners, each contributing half their genetic code. The implications of God to directly control evolution are that He would have to control the choice of sexual partners, mutation and environment (e.g. deciding if there will be a drought that would benefit drought tolerant individuals). With such disruptive intervention, free will in such events becomes meaningless.

In conclusion, "Science helps us to understand how the universe works. But faith helps us to find meaning and blessedness it in" (Internet source 5). If one understands Genesis as a theological example for the explanation of sin and creation, then one can easily believe in evolution also. Evolution and creationism are indeed 'insoluble' when understood as a literal message. To understand Darwinism means humanity is partially responsible for our own evolution, humanity has used evolution to breed animals through artificial selection and change the genetic structure of grains. If the traditional Abrahamic deity is indeed a transcendent, omniscient being, then it is entirely possible that humanity cannot fully understand the meaning or cause of creation. However, the fundamental issue with the conflict of evolution and scri pture is that evolution questions the credibility of the Bible. Carbon dating can put fossils way before the creation stories and can be shown in the different strata of rocks to correspond to an evolution through time (Doumit 2010). Equally, Noah's ark serves as an important example of a literal contradiction of evolution, if there were two of every animal then that is not a large enough gene pool for viable repopulation. Whilst scri ptures and evolution can be unified under a metaphorical usage, it still poses the question of freewill; which is indeed, insoluble. If the Bible does not tell a literal creation story, then how can humanity have evolved if God was not the guiding hand? If He were to guide it, then this itself suggests an incredible lack of freewill which in turn negates the traditional image of a deity as demonstrated in scri pture.