Basic HTML Version
" The supernatural is being swept
out of the universe .... God
can no longer be considerad
as the controller of the uní–
verse in any but a Pickwickian
sense .... Operationally God is
beginning to resemble not a
ruler, but the last fading smile
of a cosm ic Cheshire cat. "
Religion Without Revelation
high proportion of interviewees
believe in evolution.
Somehow belief in God as the
First Cause and evolution as his
mechanism for creation have been
welded together.
But is evolution God's method
of creating? Is God a necessary
First Cause?
ls it scientific to believe in a God
who made only the first life and then
left the rest to seJf-governing evolu–
tionary processes?
A Satisfying Combination?
The concept of theistic evolu tion
- the idea that God created life
through
the process of organic evo–
lution - is generally hailed as a
great problem-solver by representa–
tives of both the churches and the
scientific community. Undoubtedly
this is why most accept it. With God
at the helm, religion can remain
honorably in the picture. But with
evolution as the process, science can
be left alone to provide the specific
mechanisms.
As Prof. Theodosius Dobzhansky.
world-known geneticist and outspo–
ken evolutionist, said recently:
" lt
is
wrong to hold creation and evolu-
18
HUXLEY
tion as mutually exclusive alter–
nates. I am a c rea tionist
and
evolutionist. Evolution is God's or
Nature's method of Creation"
(1972, San Francisco Symposium,
Biology Teachers of America).
So both within and without the
scientific community. the idea that
God used evolution seems to be a
common solution to otherwise con–
flicting beliefs. Blending God and
evolution has come to be basically
accepted by almost all large Chris–
tian denominations today. As James
H. Jaucey, in his book,
Science Re–
turns
to God
(1961), has said:
There are a greal number of biol–
ogisls wbo al least tenlatively be–
li e,•e in evolutio n , but who
nevertheless are active members
of Christian churches and find no
problem at all. The general atti–
tude is t hat even if evolution were
to prove true, instead of making
God unnecessary,
il
would merely
show tbat this was the metbod
God used (p. 20).
The idea of theistic evolution as a
way to reconcile science and scrip–
ture is not new. Many perhaps do
not realize that Charles Darwin be–
lieved in both a Creator and the
evolutionary concept.
" For the invisible things of him
from the creation of the world are
clearly seen, being understood by
the things that are made, even his
eterna/ power and Godhead."
Romans 1:20
ROMANS
In Darwin's history-making work.
On the Origin of Species,
he con–
eludes:
The re is grandeur in tbis view of
life, with its several powers, hav–
ing been originally breathed by
the Creator into a few forms o r
in to one; and that. whilst this
planet has gone cycling on ac–
cording to the fixed law of gravity,
from so simple a beginning e nd–
less forms most beautiful and
most wonderful have been, and
are bei ng evolved (Sixth Edition,
1872).
Thus from Charles Darwin in
1872 to eminent scientists a century
later. the call is for uniting the con–
cepts of God as originator of life
and the theory of evolution as the
method whereby he created alllife.
What Does God Have
to Say?
But surely the most important
question is: "What does God have
to say about
how
he created life?"
The very first chapter of the Bible
seems to go out of its way to empha–
size the basic truth that plants and
animals were created to reproduce
onJy "after theír kínd." This phrase
definitely sets a limit on the capacity
of an animal or a plant to change.
lt
PLAIN TRUTH June-July 1974