How Could God Create Through Evolution?: A Look at Theodicy, Part 1
"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 Bethany Sollereder. Bethany Sollereder has a Master's Degree in Christian Studies from Regent College in Vancouver, Canada. Her focus was on science and religion, and her thesis was entitled "Evolutionary Theodicy: Toward an Evangelical Perspective." She has been accepted into PhD studies at the University of Exeter and hopes to start in 2011. Bethany's first degree was in intercultural studies. Bethany's other great love is 19th century British history, so when she is not reading about science and religion, she can usually be found reading Victorian literature.
“How could a good God create through a process that involves so much pain and death?” For many people, accepting evolution is less a scientific question than a theological one. After all, seeing evolution as God’s method of creation requires affirming that death, pain, and natural disasters are part of God’s creative toolbox instead of a result of the Fall. In this three-part blog series, I will first look at how theologians and scientists have seen the world in contrary ways, and then reflect theologically on how a world created through evolutionary means can be good.
First, let’s see how theologians have thought about our world. Theologians––academic and popular, contemporary and ancient––have almost universally affirmed the connection between sin and physical death. Drawing from passages such as Genesis 3 and Romans 5 & 8, they have argued that death came through sin. In regard to the natural world, this means invoking a Cosmic Fall scenario in which not only human death came through the Fall, but earthquakes, tornadoes, pain, predation, and disease as well.
Consider this quotation from John Calvin: “For it appears that all the evils of the present life, which experience proves to be innumerable, have proceeded from the same fountain. The inclemency of the air, frost, thunders, unseasonable rains, drought, hail, and whatever is disorderly in the world, are the fruits of sin. Nor is there any other primary cause of diseases.”1 Pretty clear, right? God did not want these “evils” to be part of the world, and the only reason they exist is because of human sin.
What’s more, theologians see the redemption by Christ on the cross as the denunciation of these natural evils. For example, T. F. Torrance writes “The Cross of Christ tells us unmistakably that all physical evil, not only pain, suffering, disease, corruption, death, and of course cruelty and venom in animals as well as human behaviour, but also ‘natural’ calamities, devastations and monstrosities are an outrage against the love of God and a contradiction of good order in his creation.”2
Scientists, on the other hand, have looked at these same natural phenomena, and have come to the conclusion that realities like pain, earthquakes, and death are in fact necessary to good and flourishing lives. How do they do this? Let’s look at two examples: earthquakes and pain.
When discussing plate tectonics3, the media tends to focus on the negative effects of our planet’s mobile plates. We hear about volcanic activity that shuts down European flight zones, tsunamis that devastate whole populations, and of course earthquakes, which have caused major devastations and cost many people their lives in Haiti, China, and Chile. How can earthquakes be good? What else does the plate cycle do?
First, plate tectonics, through the rotation of the mantle below, contributes to the magnetic field which surrounds our planet, keeping the atmosphere in and warding off deadly cosmic rays from the sun, which would destroy life if they reached the planet. Second, plate tectonic movement involves the solid plates being forced down into the liquid mantle and melting in some places, while in other places the plates separate and allow hot magma to rise and solidify. This recycling uses up heat produced by the interior radiation of the earth. This process is so effective that it uses up almost 90% of the heat produced by the Earth. In comparison, on Venus, the lack of plate tectonics means that the same heat produced by the core does not get recycled, and the pressure and heat build up so high that the distinction between mantle and crust gets lost––the whole planet goes molten. The rest of the time, surface temperatures average around 500 degrees Celsius. There are many other advantages to plate tectonics, including stabilizing atmospheric carbon dioxide, maintaining temperatures for liquid surface water, renewing nutrients in the soil, and keeping a distinction between ocean and continent. Life, and certainly human life in this world, simply does not have a chance without plate tectonics. I do not want to understate the great human and animal cost associated with earthquakes, volcanoes, and tsunamis, but without plate tectonics, there would be no life at all. I would affirm that this world’s plate tectonics are part of God’s very good creation.
What about pain? If any of us were given the choice to live without pain, most of us would say an enthusiastic “yes please!” Until, that is, we saw what a life without pain really looks like. In our mind’s eye we would imagine striding untouched though hardship and peril, like a real-life Superman, able to conquer all the aches and pains that keep us from reaching our full potential. In reality, a painless life is a horror show. In reality, painlessness looks like leprosy.
Leprosy, also known as Hansen’s Disease, is a bacterial infection that invades the body’s pain nerves and ultimately destroys them, leaving the person with an inability to feel pain. That is, in fact, almost all that leprosy does. The subsequent damage that we associate with leprosy––fingers falling off, open wounds, and missing limbs––does not actually come from the bacteria themselves, but from the resulting painlessness. Patients burn themselves and do not pull back; they walk on broken limbs and do not notice. In the book The Gift of Pain, Paul Brand describes how in one African clinic, rats were coming in the night and feeding on patients fingers, and because they felt no pain, they slept on.4 Pain is a good thing, our ever-present protector, developed through an evolutionary process to help us live good lives. Now, this is not to say that pain never goes wild. It does, and with realities like chronic pain or torture, pain can become an enemy. But that does not undermine the fact that our ability to feel pain is a great gift; it just means that sometimes that gift becomes twisted in its expression. The solution is not to wish for a world with no pain, but for a world where pain is appropriately experienced.
Now let me insert one caveat here: in no way do I want to say that just because pain is “natural” that we have no responsibility to help relieve it. That is not what I am arguing. I would say that pain serves important purposes, which are needed for a good life. At the same time, we should look to the example of Jesus, who walked into pain-filled situations and brought healing, regardless of the cause of the suffering. It is our recognition of suffering in the other5 and our responsibility of stewardship to one another that must motivate our medical ethics.
There is a lot more that we could talk about here. We could speak of predation, which encourages biodiversity and drives evolutionary innovation. We could explore how physical death is a good and necessary part of a world that has limited resources, keeping organisms from becoming cancerous (cancer cells never die on their own and are thus “immortal”). These are important, but they roughly follow the same type of argumentation as above. In my next post, I will look at the values of a world developed through an evolutionary process, or, as it is sometimes asked, “Why didn’t God simply create heaven in the first place?”
Notes
1. John Calvin, Commentaries upon the First Book of Moses called Genesis (1554) in Calvin’s Bible Commentaries: Genesis, Part I, trans. J. King (Forgotten Books, 1847, 2007), 113.
2. T. F. Torrance, Divine and Contingent Order (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1981), 117.
3. For more about plate tectonics, check out Peter Ward and Donald Brownlee, Rare Earth: Why Complex Life is Uncommon in the Universe, (New York: Copernicus, 2004).
4. Paul Brand & Philip Yancey, The Gift of Pain: Why we hurt & what we can do about it (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1993), 127.
5. Suffering, and not necessarily pain. Pain is the brain’s reception of the stimulation of pain nerves. Suffering is a psychological state, and can be caused by many things. Pain can be absent in those who suffer, as is the case with leprosy. We should be careful not to collapse these two distinct concepts into one and the same thing.
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.
July 30th 2010
No one here has seemed to consider that there was another fall before A&E’s, that is the fall of Satan and his angels.
I think we should be at least open to the possibility that some of the “bad” attributes of God’s created-good creation may be the result of that fall, and the spiritual war that followed.
Reply to this commentJuly 30th 2010
Robert@24115
“I think we should be at least open to the possibility that some of the “bad” attributes of God’s created-good creation may be the result of that fall, and the spiritual war that followed.”
I agree but find that we are given very few details on this earlier rebellion and so making theology upon what little we have seems problematic, but yes that possibly earlier sin may have damaged the early earth prior to mankind coming on the scene. Off the top of my head I can’t think of any scripture that definitely places the fall of Satan prior to creation of the universe. In order to justify some point of theology I always want multiple places in scripture to support that point to help ensure that we are interpreting scripture properly.
Reply to this commentDave W
July 30th 2010
Hello Robert, I do not believe Satan’s fall had any effect on creation. That is because dominion over creation was intended for Adam - only Adam’s fall could affect it.
Reply to this commentAugust 2nd 2010
As some have already commented, the whole problem of death, pain and suffering before the fall goes away if one accepts a young earth viewpoint.
So does all the pain of wondering about the “Adam of Paul” and a whole host of other ailments that spring up because of not taking genesis 1 literally.
So why would one want to accept an atheistic viewpoint [evolution and Darwinism] and then try to reconcile the bible to it? This part I find really hard to understand. Perhaps someone could enlighten me why they believe in evolution when the bible simply states that God created things in a fully functional and seemingly mature form? Who is the authority on the creation of the earth? God’s word or the science of man? Is someone going to tell me I’m not reading correctly when I read that everything was created in six days? How did I go wrong?
Reply to this commentAugust 3rd 2010
GeraldR: I’ll have a stab at answering your question. In my opinion… It boils down to different approaches to interpreting the Bible. Few, if anyone at all (I’d guess), would think the earth only a few thousand years old on geological evidence, unless they’d already decided that’s what the Bible says. Then they let this interpretation of Genesis “trump” geology. Same for origins of biodiversity.
I think it’s better to admit that fallible humans are trying to understand both the Bible & the natural world - fallible exegetes, fallible scientists. If our understanding of Bible & world don’t align, we should ask which we’re most likely to have misread.
For myself, I’m more certain that I’m right in interpreting geology & biology in an old earth evolutionary way, than that I’d be right to interpret the Bible in a Young Earth Creationist way. Science speaks more clearly here. The Bible is reasonably open to other exegetically viable interpretations, which take the Bible just as seriously as a YEC view - interpretations that have a firm place within Christian tradition. E.g. I take a framework view of Genesis 1; its roots are in Augustine, who wasn’t trying to accommodate modern science, since he lived 1500 years ago!
Reply to this commentAugust 7th 2010
GeraldR @ #24320: You wrote, “the whole problem of death, pain and suffering before the fall goes away if one accepts a young earth viewpoint.”
The problem also goes away if one understands that Western Christendom’s expectation that God’s pre-fall material creation would be perfect does not originate from the Bible, but from the pagan philosophies of Plato. The Hebrew writers of the OT did not have a problem with ascribing the non-ideal aspects of nature to Yahweh’s activity within his creation. In fact, it elicited their worship. This included tectonics, storms, predation, and death in the animal kingdom:
“May the Lord rejoice in his works - who looks on the earth and it trembles, who touches the mountains and they smoke” - Psalm 104:31-32
“Praise the Lord from the earth, you sea monsters and all deeps, fire and hail, snow and frost, stormy wind fulfilling his command.” - Psalm 148:7-8
“The young lions roar for their prey, seeking their food from God.” Psalm 104:21
“O Lord, how manifold are your works…the earth is full of your creatures…When you hide your face, they are dismayed; when you take away their breath, they die and return to their dust.” Psalm 104:24-30
Also Job 38-41; Psalm 104 in full.
Reply to this commentAugust 8th 2010
Hornspiel @ 22925: You asked, “Do you think competition will cease in the eschaton?”
Whether it will cease in nature apart from humankind I cannot say. For a resurrected and glorified human race, I expect that the only type of competition would be of the friendly sort. Our own culture is obsessed with competitiveness because, apart from simple survival or ego, we see competition as a creative force in human society. I have known Christians who have advocated unrestricted capitalistic competition for this reason while at the same time rejecting evolution, They believe in Social Darwinism but not Biological Darwinism, i.e., they get their science from the Bible and their ethics from nature - kinda backwards IMO.
However, the Bible sees human beings as God’s creative force in the world. Competition is simply one possible motivator of creativity. Others are love, compassion, curiosity, and others that are seen in a more positive light. As for competition, the Bible has this to say:
“And I have seen that every labor and every skill which is done is the result of rivalry between a man and his neighbor. This too is vanity and striving after wind.” - Ecc. 4:4
Reply to this commentAugust 10th 2010
I would like to suggest that those who have ONLY been steeped in evolutionary thought to take a look at creation.com for another point of view of things. You could also explore answersingenesis.com if you haven’t done so yet.
It’ll really ease your burden of trying to reconcile the bible to the “facts” of evolution [ because you treat it as if the Darwinian theory of evolution is the authority on the creation of the earth, instead of the bible being the last word on that issue].
Happy hunting to those who have the courage and humility to do so.
Reply to this commentAugust 16th 2010
I must say that one rarely finds a theologian who sees the problem of evil and proposes a theodicy which basically says that evil is really good. The problem of evil in a few words proposes that a good and all-loving god is not consistent with the evil and suffering in this world. The free will argument is not compelling and really can only be applied to choices the individual makes. The problem really is about all the natural disasters. Pointing to how there is always a silver lining or trying to see why something terrible that destroys many thousands of lives is really good is circular reasoning at best.
Reply to this commentYou make the error of appeal to anonymous authority. Who are those scientists who “have looked at these same natural phenomena, and have come to the conclusion that realities like pain, earthquakes, and death are in fact necessary to good and flourishing lives?” I really cannot recall any scientist coming forward after Katrina and saying it was necessary for a good life. All I can recall was a prominent christian minister proclaiming that it was God’s will because of homosexuals and abortion, etc.
August 16th 2010
Your choice of which theologians to rely on as authorities is interesting. Calvin, of Protestant Reformation fame, was a proponent of total depravity and predestination, essentially denying human free will. His point of view was that everything was due to man’s sin and God had the final say, nothing anyone can do. Torrance is a calvinist known as a member of the “classical christianity ” school.
Reply to this commentI can see how you have been influenced by their orientation toward the suffering of humanity. But I think you tend more toward Irenaeus than Augustine.
As far as referring to evolution. I just don’t see it. Not in this article. Other comments flesh this out so I will skip it. We will see.
It takes time to read the article, reflect on it, read other comments, before commenting myself.
August 16th 2010
T’sinadree - #22973
If you want to read a really good book about religion and evolution I highly recommend Miller:Finding Darwin’s God: A Scientist’s Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution ISBN 0-06-093049-7
His other book is also excellent Only a Theory: Evolution and the Battle for America’s Soul ISBN 978-0670018833
Miller is a prominent scientist and a practicing and committed christian.
Reply to this commentAugust 16th 2010
Bethany
Reply to this comment“I hope to never stop questioning what God has done. That’s largely how science started in the first place!”
That is a strange concept and belies your biases. Science does not “question” anything God does. Looking for answers to why things are the way they are is what humans have always done. If that is your true view of science then why are you writing these things? Especially at the BioLogos Foundation which maintains that it “explores, promotes and celebrates the integration of science and Christian faith.”
You will need to demonstrate that this bias against science can be overcome.
August 16th 2010
So conrad - #22989 you are criticizing Darwin because he did not refer to work he had not read?? Mendel wrote in 1865 and 1866 but these works weren’t much read untill about 1900. And even then not much accepted. Don’t you find that a bit harsh? Don’t you also think it pretty amazing that discoveries AFTER his works only go to prove his ideas? It was a hundred years after Darwin that the process of DNA replication was discovered. Every bit of science in the past 150 years has only reinforced Natural Selection. Yes, work in RNA is proceeding. The science is a bit “heady”, it involves proteins and enzymes, complicated organic chemical bonding, the intricate biological working on the cellular level.
Reply to this commentAugust 16th 2010
Robert - #24115 &
gingoro - #24120
Perhaps you aren’t aware that your ideas here are a reflection of Augustine of Hippo. He adopts what can only be called a Manichean dualistic approach. The evil which we might call “natural” he considers to be caused by the fallen angels. Personal evil (the stuff we do) is caused by the “fall”.
Reply to this commentAugust 16th 2010
Trevor K. - #25197
Reply to this commentThose are interesting creationist sites. There is no science to be found there, of course. And the religious views resonate with a very very small proportion of christianity, not to mention the whole world.
I would recommend http://pandasthumb.org/ for a view of the truth. If you dare
August 16th 2010
Gregory - #22983
Reply to this commentWOW Greg man you do put a lot of stuff in few words. Are you suggesting that because someone blesses something it therefore has a soul? Or that animals etc. don’t have souls and therefore shouldn’t be blessed? What does the “man’s best friend” mean? Is that a problem because dogs are not mentioned in the bible?
August 16th 2010
Greg Myers - #23032
Reply to this commentSome good points there. We are in the world we are in. Despite the fact that some people look at the anthropic principle and declare that therefore we must have a god, we must look at the story behind the propositions.
Humans need to understand our place in the world. We need to have meaning. For many thousands of years that is what we have been doing. So many of the posters here demonstrate that so very strongly. As we have found more answers to basic questions, people have felt that need more strongly. There was a time when lightening had to come from the gods. The Tanakh gives the answers to basic questions like where did this all come from? where did we come from? Why? But those were the answers from a nomadic tribe of herders, thousands of years ago. Why do people cling so firmly to such mythology? Some christians debate young earth versus old earth!! And at the other end of the time line: the final days. Now there is a source for reasonable discussion!! It is all a search for personal and perhaps communal meaning. Each new factual understanding of our universe cause them to try to reconcile their ancient texts with facts. Failing that, they deny the facts.
August 31st 2010
“... Paul entwines together spiritual and physical death? Both in the ancient world are seen as evil, as opposed to the will of God and against the flourishing of His creatures. “
I assume that by “ancient world” you refer to the Graeco-Roman world view. Do you think that “worldviews and cultural assumptions must also be translated.” The ancient world did not have the same view of evil or death that many do now. Most of your statements would not mean much to the ancient Roman or Greek, at least not as you interpret those words. Indeed the whole concept of sin as put forward by most christians is not consonant even with the Tanakh. In fact it wasn’t until the inter-testamental times that a theory of the afterlife was even considered by the Hebrews. The Greeks had a whole different view of death, check out Homer. The Romans, too. Read Cicero.
Reply to this comment“It is clear that death was present in the world long before human sin, indeed, death has been present as long as life.”
How would you demonstrate the truth of that statement? Following your story line, I guess animals might have died in the garden before the whole snake thing. But I kinda thought that that was the point of that story. Sin brought death into the world.