In Response to Challenge Weekly and Creation Ministries International
It’s time for a more lengthy post.
My good and close friend, Dale Campbell, recently organized a conference at his church (Northcote Baptist Church). It was a one day conference called ‘Faithful Science’ and explored themes connected to the relationship between Faith and Science (funny that). Most of the speakers were pro-evolution or evolution friendly.
This caught the attention of Challenge Weekly and Creation Ministries International NZ (CMI). Challenge Weekly posted an article about the conference that had an obvious bias and titled it “Conference Fuels Controversy”… as if literal six day creation and young earth ideas do not fuel any controversy… some of the letters to the editor that were published following the article were simply sad, pretty much condemning any Christian who would hold to the theory of evolution as being an accurate description of how we got to life as we know it and thus holding to differing theories from the likes of young earth creationists about how the first chapters of Genesis are to be understood.
CMI have since been given space in subsequent editions of the paper to publish articles giving their perspective (thus nailing Challenge’s bias clearly to the door).
As a Christian who is probably further down the track than Dale in having a cemented adherence to evolution and natural selection, it saddened me to see the letters people were writing calling his faith into question - but as Dale has noted on his own blog, it was not suprising. Dale is more patient than me. Also not suprising has been the response of CMI, Having not been around CMI’s publications for a number of years now - publications I used to read religiously as if they were gospel - I had forgotten how riddled with problems their work often is and how condemning it can be of those they don’t agree with.
CMI has an enemy and a constiuency. The enemy is anyone who leans towards evolutionary ideas and increasingly this includes Christians. Their constituency is largely Christians who are worried about attacks (real or perceived) against the Christian faith and specifically, in this instance, a certain understanding of Genesis 1-11. CMI inadvertently fuels the fear and it does so by enforcing the understanding of the mythical slippery slope and a strange idea about a ‘plain reading’ of scripture.
Threats such as the slippery slope scare people into thinking that if they move towards a place where they understand Genesis differently from how CMI reports it should be understood according to their ’plain reading’ then they are starting on a ’liberal’ slide that will eventually take them towards denying the story of Jesus himself and all that God did through Christ and they argue that those of us who hold to evolutionary thought are well and truly sliding down that slope… so you better not listen to us or you become like one of those evil ‘liberals’.
They go so far as to say this in one of their articles:
“The only remedy for such a departure from the faith is repentance and return.”
So watch out folks, if CMI are right, it won’t be long before I’m telling your youngsters that Jesus himself was a myth unless I start to adhere to CMI’s ‘plain reading’ of scripture and repent and return to Genesis according to their understanding.
CMI are prone to saying things like this:
“Rather, the issue is whether God has spoken in the Bible, and will we believe what He says?”
The clear assumption and direction given to the reader is that the evolutionist (Christian in this instance) is denying that God has spoken in the Bible and that we do not believe what it says.
I have big problems with this way of thinking. This issue raises its ugly head whenever this topic is put forward. On my radio show, whenever it comes up that I am an adherent of evolutionary thought, callers always go to great pains to assert that they take the Bible very seriously before they even begin to disagree with me. The assumption is that I do not believe the Bible or take it seriously. What an insult.
I am happy to affirm that I take the Bible very seriously - a quick look at my bank balance over the last decade will demonstrate that in various ways (where your treasure is, there your heart is also). I also believe that God has spoken and continues to speak through it and I believe what he says.
This is where CMI’s idea of a ‘plain reading’ of scripture falls over. They state:
“Although accused of wooden literalism creationists in fact advocate a “plain reading” rather than a slavish “literal meaning”. In other words we are to read Scripture as it was intended to be read.”
This statement then begs the question - a plain reading according to whose understanding of the intent? By CMI’s definition of a ‘plain reading’ there is no issue with my adherence to evolutionary though because I have come to the conclusion that the intent of the first 11 chapters (or at least the very first chapter) of Genesis do not demand me to put my hand up for young earth six day creationism. By CMI’s definition, by believing as I do, I am adhering to a plain reading.
In the same breath I can agree with them when they say that when it says a “day”, it means a 24 hour period. In the same way that Icarus’ feathers were actual feathers in that mythical story, so a “day” is a day in Genesis 1.
I’m not sure if they’re aware of it, but to uphold their work and question their opposition CMI also regularly undermine the whole scientific process in order to attack evolutionary thought. Their latest example of this in Challenge Weekly was written by a man I get along with well and like very much. I also have a healthy respect for him and consider him a friend. I still have huge respect for him, but will address what he wrote.
The article mentions evidence of various types of grass being found in dinosaur droppings. This is a big deal according to the article because evolutionary understandings place grass much later in the time frame than dinosaurs. He later talks about how this will make evolutionists rework their ‘fairy tales’. He then notes that such discoveries make evolutionists shift and change their thinking often as if this is a bad thing that should not happen. He asserts that these shifts and changes would not need to happen if evolutionists simply grounded their thinking in CMI’s understanding of Genesis.
By stating what he has, he has unwittingly undermined the whole scientific process, a process that has given us much of our modern life. In the writing he has assumed that shifting and changing ideas according to new evidence is a bad thing. Far from underminding evolution though, if it is conclusively proven that grass and dinosaurs existed at the same time, it just means that some understandings about time frames will shift. That’s not a bad thing. It happens all the time across the scientific spectrum.
Do you think we would have the lightbulb if Thomas Edison had not shifted and changed his understandings according to the evidence and facts that were presented to him with each attempt? Do you think Ernest Rutherford would have split the atom if his ideas and thoughts according to the evidence had not shifted and changed along the way? No. Far from condemning evolution, new evidence simply enhances our understanding of it. Being able to shift, change, test and move according to the evidence is the key ingredient in the scientific process.
Sadly, far too many Christians get caught up in the scaremongering of that inherently takes place in these debates. It stops them from even listening to various ideas about the Bible… not just in Genesis, but also places like Revelation. If they can’t listen to academia about Genesis because academia can’t be trusted, why should they listen to learned scholars about any part of the Bible. It is my belief that institutes like CMI inadvertently help the popularity of silly works like the Left Behind series and all Christian leaders who support its ideas about ‘end times’. It’s another area that relies on the fear of too many Christians who don’t want to feel like they’re reading the Bible in a “wrong” way.
Alongside all this, it has bred an unhealthy distrust of the scientific community amongst many Christians - that distrust can be clearly seen with other issues.
It’s that fear that fuels the controversy, not one church running a conference that is warm to evolution whilst remaining true to the person of Jesus the Christ. It’s that fear that breeds distrust and division and causes people to look past the person of Jesus as the central element of the Christian faith. It’s that fear that nails people to a cross if they don’t adhere to a specific understanding about the first chapters of Genesis.
I am a Christian who adheres to evolution. I am a person who declares the living person of Jesus to be King, Lord, Master and Saviour. I affirm my own fallen nature and need for God’s saving action. I affirm the birth, death, resurrection and ascension of Christ. I affirm that Christ, both human and divine is the author of this universe and is its ultimate ruler. I affirm the scriptures along with tradition, reason and experience as God’s central means for communicating himself to his world. I affirm God’s continued work in his universe and I am humbly grateful for the opportunity I have to be a part of that work.
Far from being on some mythical slippery slope, my affirmation of the Christian faith has only grown over the last number of years. Moving away from young earth six day creationism to embracing evolution has been a part of that journey. I now have a greater appreciation for both the scientific community, the scientific process and what it demonstrates about the drive of humanity to discover and understand this world that has been gifted to us - an outworking of the very creative nature we have, a nature that reflects some of the character of God. By watching scientists driving to understand more and the delight that goes along with that, we see something of God.
