Evolving Beyond Apologetics: A Review of Rachel Held Evans’ “Evolving in Monkey Town”
"The BioLogos Forum" is pleased to feature essays from various guest voices in the science-and-religion dialogue. Please note the views expressed here are those of the author, not necessarily of The BioLogos Foundation. You can read more about what we believe here.
Today's entry was written by Dennis Venema. Dennis Venema is an associate professor and department chair for the biology department of Trinity Western University in Langley, British Columbia. His research is focused on the genetics of pattern formation and signaling.
Lately I’ve been musing on the hypothesis that one significant difference between the Intelligent Design (ID) approach and an evolutionary creationist / BioLogos approach is how the two viewpoints employ apologetics: arguments for the existence of God (or a “Designer”); the efficacy of “natural” mechanisms, and so on. It seems to me that a large portion of the railing against “naturalism” on the part of several ID figures is motivated by the desire for a convincing Christian apologetic. Stephen Meyer, for example, puts is this way in his recent book Signature in the Cell:
“According to scientific materialism, reality is ultimately impersonal… though this view of existence proved initially liberating in that it released humans from any sense of obligation to an externally imposed system of morality, it has also proved profoundly and literally dispiriting. If the conscious realities that comprise our personhood have no lasting existence, if life and mind are nothing more than unintended ephemera of the material cosmos, then, as the existential philosophers have recognized, our lives can have no lasting meaning or ultimate purpose. Without a purpose driven universe, there can be no ‘purpose-driven life.’”1
Meyer, then, seems to be highly motivated to articulate an apologetic to counter the purposeless he sees in “materialistic” explanations.
In contrast, adopting an EC/BioLogos – type approach means being willing to give up an anti-evolutionary apologetic. Accepting that God created through what we observe as a natural process deflates any attempt to argue for His existence based on natural phenomena that science has yet to explain. For a dyed-in-the-wool presuppositional apologist, this is madness. Still, we’ve been here before. Preaching a “crucified Messiah” had what can only be described as negative apologetics value for Paul: it was foolishness for Gentiles and a serious stumbling block for Jews.
With these thoughts in mind, I was pleased to meet author Rachel Held Evans2 at the BioLogos conference earlier this month. (You can see her thoughts on the meeting here). Rachel grew up in Dayton Tennessee, home of the infamous Scopes Monkey trial of 1925. Rachel attended Bryan College (named in honor of William Jennings Bryan, the prosecutor that convicted schoolteacher John Scopes of teaching evolution); she is the daughter of a Bryan professor; Kurt Wise was one of her instructors. In short, she grew up in a world firmly devoted to anti-evolutionary Christian apologetics.
Evolving in Monkey Town is the story of how cracks begin to appear in the façade of Rachel’s comfortable world, with its ready answers for difficult questions. Eventually, most of what she has known comes crashing down around her, leaving her to sort through the pieces and reevaluate what being a Jesus-follower is all about.
Her descent into doubt is a poignant section of the book:
“On the outside, I embodied all the expectations I had for myself going into college. I was confident, articulate, ready to change the world. But on the inside, something different was happening. I started to have doubts.
You might say that the apologetics movement had created a monster. I’d gotten so good at critiquing all the fallacies of opposing worldviews, at searching for truth through objective analysis, that it was only a matter of time before I turned the same skeptical eye upon my own faith.”
As her story unfolds, we journey with her as she asks the hard questions: what exactly is orthodox Christianity, and what are merely “false fundamentals”? Does the faith stand or fall with a literal interpretation of Genesis? How can a loving God be reconciled with the genocides He commands in the Old Testament? Is there a place for mystery, paradox and tension when you’ve been raised on a worldview claiming certainty? And after the dust settles, what about this Jesus character, anyway?
What sets Evolving in Monkey Town apart is that it takes the abstract ideas discussed in more scholarly works and incarnates them in a person. Where other books strive to reach an answer, we join with Rachel as she struggles to find a way to live in the questions. This work is significant not because it advances scholarly dialogue on the topics it covers (though strangely, it does that too) but because Rachel is a representative voice that an apologetics-infatuated church desperately needs to hear. How does faith survive when what one took for granted as part-and-parcel of the faith evaporates? Is there a place where those “Already Gone” can come back to Jesus?
What really made this book stand out for me was the refreshing honesty and depth of the story. It drew me in, hooked me early, and it didn’t let go. Most science/faith/worldview/Biblical interpretation books aren’t exactly page-turners (sorry Pete). This one is: I read it straight through in one sitting (it’s over 200 pages) and felt it ended far too quickly. It’s deep enough for the scholar’s shelf and easily engaging enough for the beach. I didn’t think I’d ever put a book in that category. It’s delightfully well-written, funny, and keenly insightful. I laughed, I cried, I bought the T-shirt. If you read one book on the science/faith continuum this summer, this is the one you should read. Y’all get yourselves over to Rachel’s blog and order one
To read more about Rachel's faith journey, see her recent blog.
Notes
1. Signature in the Cell p. 449.
2. I’ve always enjoyed noting folks who have proper sentences for names. In her case, that’s the best reason I’ve seen for keeping a maiden name as part of a married name!
For the latest comments, subscribe to our Comment RSS feed. See a comment that violates our Commenting Guidelines? Use the "Report Inappropriate Comment" tool in the upper-right corner.
June 28th 2010
...and JKnott too!
Reply to this commentJune 28th 2010
Gregory,
Here are ways to drive your point home:
“Take an umbrella with you, as the weather could evolve and begin to rain.”
“I have always been fascinated by fossil evolution.”
“I used to like him, but something happened and he has evolved.”
“Hey Dr. Dino, I liked your posting. But you may want to go back and evolve that first sentence, as it has a typo.”
Reply to this commentJune 28th 2010
Sure, Mike glad to oblige (already written in 2005)...
List of 10: Unsatisfactory uses for evolutionary social philosophy/linguistics
Reply to this comment1. The election evolved into a conclusive result (i.e. ballot by ballot);
2. The artist’s painting evolved into a masterpiece (i.e. brush stroke by stroke);
3. The athlete evolved into being injured (e.g. torn knee ligament);
4. The sports contest evolved (point by point) into a victory and a defeat;
5. The haircut evolved (snip by snip) into an aesthetic disaster;
6. The couple evolved (X by Y) into a family;
7. The student evolved (course by course) into a graduate;
8. The company evolved (transaction by transaction) into a profitable business;
9. The conflict evolved (shot by shot) into a war;
10. The architectural blueprint evolved (design by design) into a building.
June 29th 2010
Or from a recent Gatorade commercial (during NBA 2010 Playoff’s, maybe still current…):
“If you wanna revolution, the only solution, evolve.”
Reply to this commentJune 29th 2010
Hi Gregory,
I’ve read many of your comments and am still trying to understand your central complaint. Do you think there should be no popular uses of the word “evolve” that differ from the meaning in biology? If so, do you also object to the wide range of meaning “relativistic” has in popular usage that doesn’t coincide with its use in physics? What if some of the more popular uses predate the technical uses?
Reply to this commentJune 29th 2010
Marshall,
I think Gregory’s central complaint is that not only does the word “evolve” find it’s way into usage beyond biology, but it often then brings significant baggage along with it. Some of that baggage merely leads to muddled thinking, but sometimes the baggage can have extreme real-life consequences as in the case of social-darwinism or “evolutionary economics.”
So when you say something “evolved” do you mean:
1. Came about by random mutation plus natural selection
2. Changed over generations gradually, such that one generation can communicate with the next, but individuals separated by many generations cannot communicate
3. Changed not as a result of mind or intention but rather by random, naturalistic means
4. Changed not merely in a cyclical fashion, but in a direction
5. Changed gradually
6. Changed
Then etymology of “evolve” suggests #4 as the root definition of the word, with the others adding or discarding “baggage.”
I think Gregory has a point, even if he overplays it sometimes
Reply to this commentJune 29th 2010
Hi John,
Thanks for the background. I know people who equate the theory of relativity with post-modernism, which I think would be a similar mixing of categories or “muddled thinking”, yet I’m not quite at the point of discarding other uses of the word “relative” and its cognates as a result.
I think muddled thinking will be around regardless, and I don’t think we’re going to come up with a language where every word has only a single, precise definition (nor, that it would be desirable to do so). Perhaps a great deal of muddled thinking is due to expecting written language to result in math equations rather than literature.
Perhaps a better cure to this kind of confused thinking is pointing out the conflations that have occurred (where a word is used in one sense to make a point that only stands based on another sense), rather than promoting a more limited or rigid lexicon. The title of this blog post seems to be a quite appropriate use of definition 4 (perhaps the most basal), with a play-on-words thrown in. As a math equation it would be horrible, but as literature I think it’s clever.
Reply to this commentJune 29th 2010
Marshall,
Agreed
I think the title serves another purpose beyond cleverness. “Evolve” is an evil word for many Christians, so hearing it used this way a) confronts a somewhat irrational prejudice and b) might help some become more comfortable with the term.
Reply to this commentJune 29th 2010
Hi Marshall,
Good questions!
“Do you think there should be no popular uses of the word “evolve” that differ from the meaning in biology?”
My policy is: reject all uses of ´evolution´ wrt ´human-made things.´ The axiom I present, which I might have posted here is: “Nothing human-made ´evolves´ into being or having become.”[ /b] I´ve said this consistently for 6 or 7 years.
To questions 2&3 from #19454, I would say that ´relative´ has a more basic meaning, a more powerful meaning than ´evolution,´ & thus holds more uses. Your cousin is still your ´relative´ even if I reject some aspects of ´relativism´ as a late- or post-modern ideology. Relations(hips).
Popular uses ´pre-dating´ technical uses applies to ´evolution´ (philos, socio). The problem is when natural & social scientists share a ´universal evolutionism´ (e.g. socio-biol or universal relativism) in the face of alternative ways of speaking that identify proper ´limits´ for the nat-phys-scientific or general theory.
To call Dennis´ title ´clever´ or ´tricksy´ is easy. But *what* is it that actually *is* ´evolving´ in the title? Anything physical or not? Anything human-made or not?
When I ask eVo economists this, I get FUZZ.
Reply to this commentJune 29th 2010
Hi John,
Thanks for your observations. Yes, I would agree that ´evolution´ outside of biology often brings baggage along with it. It is not only biological baggage, but also philosophical & even (a)theological baggage.
You´ve got me curious about what you think are some of the negative or ´extreme real-life consequences´ of ´evolutionary economics´.
You suggest #4 as the ´root definition´: “Changed not merely in a cyclical fashion, but in a direction”
One problem here is how ´direction´ relates to progress, advance, improvement and other teleological ideas. Biological evolution is said (by some) to be ateleological, without (higher) purpose.
Do Dennis and Rachel think they are demonstrating ´higher purpose´ in contesting that non-nat-phys things ´evolve´? Perhaps they do.
Marshall seems to think that Dennis and Rachel use ´evolving´ to imply a ´direction´. Maybe they´ll tell us which direction, purpose, pathway. Otherwise, bluff.
I agree with John´s point in #19475 about how pop evolutionism ´might help,´ yet I doubt John´s looked at the problem of ´universal evolutionism´ to the depth & width that I have.
Again, the question is: what are egs. of things that don´t evolve?
Reply to this commentJune 30th 2010
Hi Gregory,
I assume it’s a person’s thinking, acting, mindset, or worldview. This is not directly physical. It is human-made only in the same sense that a person makes up their mind.
I don’t see why those last two questions are crucial, since different meanings of “evolve” do not have the constraints that other meanings have. (Just as my closest relatives must be other human beings and the relation is biological, yet if I say my savings are low relative to my income, neither object is human or even an organism, and the relation is simply a comparison.)
Is that kind of like asking what kind of things don’t relate? Which meaning of “evolve” do you have in mind? One of the technical senses in biology, or one of the older, more generic meanings?
Reply to this commentJune 30th 2010
“Accepting that God created through what we observe as a natural process deflates any attempt to argue for His existence based on natural phenomena that science has yet to explain. For a dyed-in-the-wool presuppositional apologist, this is madness.”
I think you were intending something more along the lines of “For a dyed-in-the-wool [evidential] apologist, this is madness [since it gives up what appears to be a strong line of argumentation].” Using the technical term “presuppositional” seems incorrect.
I agree with the above commenters that there is nothing inherent in presuppositional (that is, Van Tillian or Clarkian) apologetics that evolutionary creationism does violence to. Indeed, for purist presuppositionalists, attempting to argue from natural phenomena *at all* is wrong-headed, while for critical (“non-purist”) presuppositionalists like John Frame, arguing from nature is acceptable. Compare http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presuppositional_apologetics
Reply to this commentJuly 2nd 2010
Gregory, I think it is fairer to say that evolution results in populations of genes that tend to be fitter for the local conditions where the organisms find themselves. This is important because evolution is not pointless, just not designed with an end in mind. Randomness applies to the process by which change occurs, fitness speaks to how some changes bestow a reproductive on the host organism, resulting in those advantageous genes becoming more frequent in a given population.
Reply to this commentJuly 3rd 2010
- Just curious to see if the formatting can be corrected - I didn’t close off the bolding above and everyone is now bolding too.
Reply to this commentJuly 9th 2010
Now formatting has been fixed, I wonder if anyone wants to continue the conversation.
John wrote something I found quite curious:
“...sometimes the baggage can have extreme real-life consequences as in the case of social-darwinism or “evolutionary economics”.”
What eVo econ consequences were you referring to?
If ideas, understanding & apologetics can be said to ‘evolve’, then what doesn’t ‘evolve’?
Most people, particularly religious believers, respond immediately: “God doesn’t evolve.” But I’ve heard TEs say: ‘God’s ethics evolve’. This is an extreme position!
Marshall asks (#19715):
“Is that kind of like asking what kind of things don’t relate? Which meaning of “evolve” do you have in mind?”
No. If *everything* biological evolves, fine. But *outside* of biology, outside of natural-physical science, another story. This is THE story for evangelicals. Leave morality to the Bible, not biology.
It is a telling sign & not a good one for BioLogos, that two of its authors are unwilling to address “things that don’t evolve”. They even make a joke out of it rather than taking a scholarly/scientific approach. How can I take ‘BioLogos’ seriously if it is just meant to be ‘not stuffy’?
Reply to this comment