WHAT IS THE POSITION OF OTHER CHURCHES ON EVOLUTION?
by Lenny Flank
(c) 1995)
The creationists are quite open (to the initiated faithful) about the religious aims and goals of their anti-evolution crusade. They believe that evolutionary theory, even theistic evolution, is, quite literally, the work of the Devil: "Behind both groups of evolutionists one can discern the malignant influence of 'that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world'." (Morris, 1963, p. 93) Indeed, Morris has declared that evolutionary theory was given to Nimrod by Satan himself, at the Tower of Babel:
"Its top was a great temple shrine, emblazoned with zodiacal signs representing the hosts of heaven, Satan and his 'principalities and powers, rulers of the darkness of the world' (Ephesians 6:12). These evil spirits there perhaps met with Nimrod and his priests, to plan their long-range strategy against God and his redemptive purposes for the post-diluvian world. This included especially the development of a non-theistic cosmology, one which could explain the origin and meaning of the universe and man without acknowledging the true God of creation. Denial of God's power and sovereignty in creation is of course foundational in the rejection of His authority in every other sphere. . . . If something like this really happened, early in post-diluvian history, then Satan himself is the originator of the concept of evolution.
"One question remains. Assuming Satan to be the real source of the evolutionary concept, how did it originate in his mind? . . . A possible answer to this mystery could be that Satan, the father of lies, has not only deceived the whole world and the angelic hosts who followed him--he has even deceived himself! The only way he could really know about creation (just as the only way we can know about creation) was for God to tell him! . . . . He refused to believe and accept the Word of God concerning his own creation and place in God's economy . . . He therefore deceived himself into supposing that all things, including himself and including God, had been evolved by natural processes out of the primordial stuff of the universe. . . ." (Morris, Troubled Waters of Evolution, 1974, pp 74-75).
Thus, concludes Morris, "The entire monstrous complex was revealed to Nimrod at Babel by demonic influences, perhaps by Satan himself . . . Satan himself is the originator of the concept of evolution." (Morris, Troubled Waters of Evolution, 1974, pp 74-75)
Evolution, in the fundamentalist world-view, stands at the very center of Satan's plans. Tim LaHaye screeches, "The theory of evolution is the philosophical foundation for all secular thought today, from education to biology and from psychology through the social sciences. It is the platform from which socialism, communism, humanism, determinism, and one-world-ism have been launched" ("Introduction", Morris, 1974, Troubled Waters of Evolution, 1974, p. 5) Henry Morris echoes, "Evolution is the root of atheism, of communism, nazism, behaviorism, racism, economic imperialism, militarism, libertinism, anarchism, and all manner of anti-Christian systems of belief and practice." (Morris 1972, p. 75)
Apparently, any evil that can be seen in the world today can be laid at the feet of evolutionary theory. "Its whole effect on the world and mankind," Morris tells us, "has been harmful and degrading. 'A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit' (Matthew 7:18) The evil fruit of the evolutionary philosophy is evidence enough of its evil roots." (Morris, Troubled Waters of Evolution, 1974, p. 186). Morris also attempts to place the blame for totalitarian dictatorships on Darwin's head: "The philosophies of Karl Marx and Friedrich Nietzsche--the forerunners of Stalin and Hitler--have been particularly baleful in their effect: both were dedicated evolutionists." (Morris, Troubled Waters of Evolution, 1974 p. 33)
Finally, Morris concludes that creation science can be criticized "only if one categorically dismisses the existence of an omnipotent God" (Morris, Scientific Creationism, 1974, p. 17) As we are about to see, this assertion is nonsense; not only did both of the co-discoverers of the supposedly "atheistic" evolutionary theory invoke a Creator (Alfred Russell Wallace believed that the human mind could only have been produced by the intervention of God, and Darwin--who had a degree in Divinity--himself wrote of a Creator who breathed life into one or a small number of life forms), but nearly every Christian Church in the United States criticizes and rejects creation "science" and sees no conflict between Christianity and evolution.
In all of their writings, the creationists attempt to paint their viewpoint as "the" Christian view, implying both that their theological interpretations are the only reasonable ones (and all others are the work of Satan), and also that their interpretations are representative of Christianity as a whole. Neither of these assertions are true. The fundamentalist creationists and their literal interpretations of Genesis are, in fact, a tiny minority within Christianity. As theologian Langdon Gilkey notes, "The best-kept secret in the American Christian Church is that no mainline denomination has any problem with evolution." (cited in Weinberg 1984, p. 29) Every mainstream religious denomination in the United States dismisses Morris's "evolution is the work of the devil" thesis.
The depth of anti-creationist sentiment among mainstream Christians was perhaps best illustrated during the Arkansas "Balanced Treatment" trial. Nearly all of the plaintiffs who sued to have the creationist law thrown out were representatives of mainstream religious organizations and churches, including the American Jewish Congress, the Union of American Hebrew Congregations, and the American Jewish Committee, as well as the resident Bishops of the United Methodist, Episcopalian, Roman Catholic and African Methodist Episcopal churches, the Arkansas head of the Presbyterian Church, and individual clergy from the United Methodist, Southern Baptist and Presbyterian churches.
The case that was argued by these plaintiffs and their witnesses was simple; Arkansas Act 590, by requiring the teaching of creation "science", was in fact promoting and requiring the spread of fundamentalist religious beliefs, based upon a literal interpretation of Genesis, and therefore gave government support to a particular religious interpretation (Biblical literalism) which was not supported or accepted by the respective churches of the plaintiffs. Thus, they argued, Act 590 unconstitutionally gave government preference to one set of religious beliefs over others, including their own. Judge Overton agreed, and ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, "The fact that creation science is inspired by the book of Genesis," Overton concluded, "and that Section 4(a) is consistent with a literal interpretation of Genesis, leaves no doubt that a major effect of the Act is the advancement of particular religious beliefs." (Overton Opinion, McLean v Arkansas, 1981)
The "particular religious beliefs" which are promoted by creation "science" are put most clearly by Rev Jerry Falwell, perhaps the best-known spokesperson for the Religious Right: "The Bible is absolutely infallible, without error in all matters pertaining to faith and practice, as well as in areas such as geography, science, history, etc." (Falwell, 1980, p. 63). This position is, of course, echoed by the creationists, who have concluded, as Henry Morris puts it, "It is impossible to devise a legitimate means of harmonizing the Bible with evolution." (Morris, ICR Impact Number 5, undated, cited in Overton Opinion, McLean v Arkansas, 1981) For creationists, the issue is black and white--- creationism is "godly" and "Christian", while evolution is the work of Satan. As Morris somewhat stridently puts it, "Evolutionary philosophy is the foundation of the rebellion of Satan himself and of every evil system which he has devised since that time to oppose the sovereignty and grace of God in this universe." (cited in Gilkey 1985, p. 89) Theistic evolutionists (as well as old-earth creationists), according to this demonology, are in effect the servants of Satan. Morris writes, "First, Christian leaders compromised on the literal Genesis in terms of the geological ages and a local Flood. Very quickly, this led them to theistic evolution. Next came an errant Bible, religious liberalism, and the social gospel. Finally, there was nothing left but humanism." (Morris 1984, p. 328)
The tiny minority of literalist fundamentalists, however, are the only ones to embrace this view. No mainstream religious organization asserts that the Bible must be literally true, or that evolutionary theory is incompatible with the Christian faith.
One of the earliest Christians to dispute the infallibility of the Genesis story was St Augustine, who argued that the Genesis narrative simply makes no sense if interpreted literally: "If God spoke through some created stuff to say 'Let there be light', how can light be the first creature, since something had to be created through which he could say 'Let light be'? . . . Or was it from inchoate stuff that God formed physical sound by which he could pronounce 'Let light be'? But if that is the case, then there was already time as a vehicle for sound, with different moments for the syllables to succeed each other. And if time preceded the creation of light, in what time was the voice created that sounded the words 'Let light be'? To which day should we assign that time?" (Wills, 1990, p. 37) Augustine concluded, "God did not intend to teach men about the inner structure of nature" (Frye 1983, p. 15).
Among the religious figures who supported evolutionary theory from the time of Darwin was the French Jesuit priest Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, who was a respected paleo-anthropologist and was involved in a number of discoveries concerning human evolution. Teilhard never saw any conflict between his religious faith and his acceptance of human evolution. The English Bishop Samuel Wilberforce, perhaps best known for his debating loss to "Darwin's bulldog" Thomas Huxley, towards the end of his life came to accept the reality of evolution, although he always continued to argue that the creation of humans must have been a divine act. To attempt to continue to deny established scientific fact, Wilberforce said, would be "the ever-ready feeble-minded dishonesty of lying for God." (Overman, 1967, p. 74)
The Reverend James Skehan, who holds a degree in theology as well as a doctorate in geology, echoes the sentiments of the vast majority of Christian scientists when he declares that there is no contradiction between his religious faith and his acceptance of the scientific theory of evolution: "Among the Biblical theologicians there is wide agreement that the story of the creation of the earth and of mankind in the first chapters of Genesis is presented to recount the beginnings of the religious history of the people of Israel, and is not a scientific analysis to establish either the age or mode of origin of the earth." (Skehan, Journal of Geological Education, Vol 31, 1983, p. 308, cited in Strahler, 1987, p. 37)
The Roman Catholic Church, which is not known for its theological liberalism, has declared that the acceptance of evolutionary theory is not incompatible with Catholicism, so long as one recognizes that at some point in human evolution, God inserted an immortal soul into humankind. In a 1950 Papal Encyclical titled Humani Generis, Pope Pius XII concluded, "The Teaching of the Church leaves the doctrine of Evolution as an open question, as long as it confines its speculations to the development, from other living matter already in existence, of the human body. (That souls are immediately created by God is a view which the Catholic faith imposes on us.)" (cited in Overman, 1967, p. 76) In October 1981, Pope John Paul II noted, "The Bible speaks to us of the origin of the universe and its makeup, not in order to provide us with a scientific treatise, but in order to state the correct relationship of man with God and the universe . . . Any other teaching about the origin and makeup of the universe is alien to the intentions of the Bible, which does not wish to teach how heaven was made, but how to go to heaven." (cited in Frye 1983, pp. 7-8) In April 1985, the Pontiff reaffirmed the doctrine cited in Humani Generis, and acknowledged the "serious and urgent" need for continued scientific research. (cited in Berra, 1990, p. 124)
The chief plaintiff in the Arkansas case was Rev William McLean, head of the Presbyterian Church in Arkansas. In June 1982, the General Assembly of the United Presbyterian Church adopted a resolution concerning Biblical literalism and evolutionary theory which concluded, "The imposition of a literalist viewpoint about the interpretation of Biblical literature--where every word is taken with a uniform literalness and becomes an absolute authority on all matters, whether moral, religious, political, historical or scientific--is in conflict with the perspective on Biblical interpretation characteristically maintained by Biblical scholars and theological schools in the mainstream of Protestantism, Roman Catholicism and Judaism. Such scholars and, we believe, most Presbyterians, find that the scientific theory of evolution does not conflict with their interpretation of the origins of life found in the Biblical literature." (cited in Frye, 1983, p. 7)
The Baptist Church has no central authority that decides on matters of religious doctrine, and thus has no official position on Biblical infallibility and evolution. But individual members of the Southern Baptist Church were plaintiffs in the Arkansas case. John Buchanan, a Baptist minister, is the head of People for the American Way, an organization which opposes creationism and other fundamentalist attempts to impose their religious beliefs through the force of law.
The General Convention of the Episcopal Church issued a statement in September 1982 concerning evolution and creation science: "The terms 'creationism' and 'creation-science' . . . do not refer simply to the affirmation that God created the Earth and Heavens and everything in them, but specify certain methods and timing of the creative acts, and impose limits on these acts which are neither Scriptural nor accepted by many Christians." (cited in Frye, 1983, p. 4) The statement went on to "affirm in its belief the glorious ability of God to create in any manner", and rejected "the rigid dogmatism of the 'creationist' movement." (cited in Frye, 1983, p. 7) Episcopalian Bishop John Shelby Spong has written an entire book, Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism, which points out the problems with a literalistic interpretation of the Bible. (Spong, 1991)
The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia, first printed in 1941, contains several passages concerning evolutionary theory: "We should not expect to look upon Genesis as possessing any scientific value for the modern world. . . . It is impossible to maintain the Biblical stories of creation in their literal state. . . Modern Judaism accepts the conclusions of science but adds to them its own thought; that behind all existing things is the ever- present God, the perpetual creator." (cited in Clark, 1977, p. 181)
Thus, the creationist argument that one cannot be both a Christian and an evolutionist--that evolution is, in Morris's words, "anti-Biblical and anti-Christian" (Plaintiffs Exhibit 31, McLean v Arkansas, 1981, cited in Overton Opinion)-- is not supported by any mainstream Christian church in the United States. As Arkansas Judge Overton bluntly concluded, "The belief in evolution per se is not a threat to faith in divine purpose." (Overton Opinion, McLean v Arkansas, 1981) Nearly every mainstream church in the United States (as well as most practicing scientists), see no conflict whatsoever between evolution and their religious faith, and instead embrace the view known as "theistic evolution", which concludes that evolution is the process through which God creates life. In the opinion of most religious organizations in the United States, creationism is not only bad science--it is bad theology as well.