Scripture, Evolution and the Problem of Science, Pt. 2

February 12, 2010
Category: Guest Features

"Science and the Sacred" is pleased to feature essays from various guest voices in the science-and-religion dialogue. Today's entry was written by Kenton Sparks. Kenton Sparks is professor of Biblical Studies at Eastern University and author of several books, including his latest God's Word in Human Words: An Evangelical Appropriation of Critical Biblical Scholarship , in which he argues that evangelical biblical scholarship has largely failed in not appropriating critical scholarship as it should.

Part 2: “The Book of Scripture and the Book of Nature”

As a rule, I would say that Augustine and Calvin handled apparent conflicts between Scripture and science with a different temperament than one commonly finds among modern, creationist opponents of evolution.

On the one hand, Augustine and Calvin tended to take the scientific evidence more seriously and grant it more weight than many evangelicals would. On the other hand, they were far more willing to adjust their interpretations of Scripture to make room for the scientific evidence. Calvin even admitted that the cosmology of Genesis was wrong.

At this point I would like very briefly to explore why these older temperaments are so different from what one finds among modern evangelical.

First, regarding the scientific evidence, both Augustine and Calvin regarded the cosmos as an important source of revelation from God. Following Psalm 19, they understood that the “heavens declare the glory of God. Day by day they pour forth speech. There is no language in which their word is not heard.” When the cosmos is understood in this way—as divine speech to humanity—then it is no longer possible to characterize Christian debates about science as a conflict that pits “God’s inerrant word in Scripture” against “errant human science.” Rather, any conflict between Scripture and science should be understood as a conflict between “human interpretations of God’s word in Scripture” and “human interpretations of God’s word in nature.”

When we understand the situation in this way, then in any apparent conflict between Scripture and science it is just as likely that we’ve misunderstood the biblical evidence as that we’ve misunderstood the science … in fact, one could make the theological argument that we’re more likely to misunderstand the Bible, as an instance of special revelation, than to misunderstand the general revelation available to everyone in creation.

Secondly, regarding Scripture itself, although Augustine and Calvin deeply trusted the Bible as a witness to Christ and the Gospel message, they did not feel any deep need for Scripture to provide dependable insights on everything in human experience. In particular, both theologians averred that the Bible is not a science book. This is why Augustine was so comfortable reading problematic biblical texts as allegories and why Calvin was able to say, rather nonchalantly, that one could not depend on Scripture as a guide to the structure of the cosmos.

Their temperament towards Scripture was very different from what prevails nowadays in pop Christian culture, where it is casually assumed that the Bible is a fool-proof guide for everything … not only for leading us to Christ and right living but also for elucidating the scholarly facts of astronomy, biology, chemistry, economics, psychology, and sociology as well as the practical facts of success in marriage, parenting, health, and personal finances.

I think we should follow the lead of Augustine and Calvin. It is time for the Evangelical tradition (of which I am a part) to take scientists more seriously and the Bible somewhat less seriously, with respect to Science.

What I mean is this. As a rule, God has not specially revealed in Scripture those things that human beings can figure out for ourselves. Basic facts about electricity, magnetism, gravity, quantum physics and genetics, however interesting, could not have been understood by ancient readers. On top of that, we have been able to tolerably appreciate and understand them by applying our natural, God-given intellectual gifts to a study of the cosmos that God made for us. And what we have discovered reveals a cosmos that is truly amazing and that, if anything, only points us towards the God who made it. And this, the Bible tells us, is precisely what the cosmos—the “book of nature”— was designed to do!

Is biological evolution among those things that we can discover for ourselves? And if it is, could it be that the evolutionary process, rather than pointing us away from God, might actually impress us as the work of a mighty God? That is the question that we will begin to take up in Part 3.

Filed Under:

science, evolution, religion, faith, Scripture, interpretation, reading, Augustine, meaning, Bible, discovery, Christianity

Share |

Comments (32)
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.

Dan - #4346

February 12^th 2010

Augustine wrote:

‘Yet no one ought to suppose either that these things were written for no purpose, or that we should study only the historical truth, apart from any allegorical meanings; or, on the contrary, that they are only allegories, and that there were no such facts at all, or that, whether it be so or no, there is here no prophecy of the church. “

While Augustine was a wee bit flexible regarding he meaning of Genesis 1, he did not think the accounts of Genesis were less than factually true. Augustine held to the historicity of the creation account and the flood and even insisted on a young earth. I don’t see the point of holding Augustine up as a club to beat creationists with. Seems like a misrepresentation to me.
Brian - #4349

February 12^th 2010

Hello Kenton,

”...the evolutionary process, rather than pointing us away from God, might actually impress us as the work of a mighty God.”

What specific scientific evidence is there that points to the evolutionary process as—not mere unguided naturalism—but, as you say, the work of a mighty God?
Dan - #4350

February 12^th 2010

“I think we should follow the lead of Augustine and Calvin. It is time for the Evangelical tradition (of which I am a part) to take scientists more seriously and the Bible somewhat less seriously.”

You are never going to get most creationists, especially YECs, to agree with this. For them, the Bible is the ultimate source of information and it cannot be taken “too seriously.” If aspects of human inquiry appear to contradict things in the Bible well then so much the worse for those things. After all, they see this as a fallen world and we are fallible humans trying to understand it. When backed into a corner over specific evidence they resort to ‘God-was-there-to-see-it-and-we-weren’t’ type arguments. They simply don’t really think the natural world is open to scientific investigation.
Larry - #4351

February 12^th 2010

to take scientists more seriously and the Bible somewhat less seriously

I think this could be better stated as taking our interpretations of the Bible somewhat less seriously. There is nothing wrong with taking the Bible seriously, it is, after all, the Word of God to the church and to the world. But we finite humans have a bad habit of making our interpretations, which are usually dependent on some kind of Enlightenment based hermeneutic, as being infallible.
Daniel mann - #4353

February 12^th 2010

Kenton,

“One could make the theological argument that we’re more likely to misunderstand the Bible, as an instance of special revelation, than to misunderstand the general revelation available to everyone in creation.”

Instead, I think Scripture is easier to interpret/understand:

1. The Bible has already been rendered into word and concepts for us.

2. It already includes its own interpretive contexts and statements. The narrative passages are a good example of this.

3. It delineates the causal relationships: “We love BECAUSE he first loved us.” (1 John 4:19)

4. The same message is repeated many times in many ways to enable us to zero-in on the meaning.

5. Scripture itself quotes and interprets other passages, thereby nailing down the meaning: “At the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female and the two will become one flesh’?” (Matthew 19:4-6)

6. The Spirit also helps us with the interpretation.

7. Scripture regarded itself as so clear that God’s people had no excuse for disobedience.

Therefore, when you argue that the interpretation of Scripture, in general, is unclear, you argue against Scripture itself.
MF - #4354

February 12^th 2010

Dr. Sparks,

I heartily concur with the thesis herein that we must pay attention to God’s two books of revelation—nature and Scripture—and that we shouldn’t read the Bible as a scientific text. Indeed, Gordon Hugenberger of Park Street Church had an excellent sermon series on Psalm 19 that treated this topic in some depth and with much focus on faith and science (not without reason—his undergrad work was in physics at Harvard). Unfortunately, they only keep a year’s worth of sermons on their website, and this series has mostly fallen off the list (I have it saved if anyone wants it). His series on Genesis, which is also relevant, is, however, available here.

(cont.)
MF - #4355

February 12^th 2010

(cont.)

Nonetheless, I’d suggest, as I did in my late comments on your previous post, that you misrepresent Calvin when you claim he “admitted that the cosmology of Genesis was wrong.”

In essence, after reading your essay and the comments, I read Calvin’s commentary on Genesis 1, which is your proof text, and think you have misunderstood what he is saying. Calvin adopts a phenomenological approach, and so he’d only say Genesis is wrong if he would also say that it is wrong to say that the sun “rises”—and I don’t think he or we can say that’s wrong. See my slightly more detailed argument there.

You suggest that some Calvin scholars agree with you. Could you perhaps supply some citations to this effect (or are they the same ones listed in note 5 of the previous article)?
Daniel mann - #4358

February 12^th 2010

Kenton,

You wrote, “Augustine and Calvin tended to take the scientific evidence more seriously and grant it more weight than many evangelicals would. On the other hand, they were far more willing to adjust their interpretations of Scripture to make room for the scientific evidence.”

I would suggest that if you want to indict modern evangelical scholars, please demonstrate where they are unwilling to use experiential or scientifically proven data, or quote them to this effect. Yes, we do take issue with the theory of macro-evolution, but so too do over 700 credentialed and courageous scientists who have signed a statement affirming that there are serious problems with this embattled theory.

Instead, the way it now stands, your generalizations about modern evangelical scholars sound like little more than insulting put-downs.
Kathryn - #4359

February 12^th 2010

Dr. Sparks,

Thanks for this thought-provoking post. I have two comments:

1. Rather than taking the Bible less seriously, I would argue we should take it even MORE seriously and thus study harder to understand how to read it faithfully, i.e. as God and the human authors through whom he spoke intended. This means we need to cling less to specific interpretive lenses and more to viewing it from many angles, though never failing to offer thanks and praise to God for speaking to us.

2. You rightly observe that in Christian pop-culture it is “casually assumed that the Bible is a fool-proof guide for everything.” In secular pop-culture it is casually assumed that science is such a guide. Neither is correct, but I can’t help but believe that God is still pleased in a simple, genuine faith that his Word is all we need.
Alan - #4360

February 12^th 2010

“Yes, we do take issue with the theory of macro-evolution, but so too do over 700 credentialed and courageous scientists who have signed a statement affirming that there are serious problems with this embattled theory.”

Unfortunately, this is just not true. For one thing your little statement says nothing about ‘macroevolution’.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ty1Bo6GmPqM

http://ncse.com/taking-action/project-steve
Glen Davidson - #4362

February 12^th 2010

The rise of literacy is presumably the main reason why the Bible has come to be supposedly covering all areas of knowledge. The Church in the Middle Ages didn’t want people reading the Bible (including poorly educated priests), not just because this meant that their own interpretation would have to be accepted, but because they really did know that people were prone to read the Bible out of context (we still do, really, but not as much as previously).

Augustine and Calvin had enough knowledge to realize that the Bible could not be a text about the “natural world.” Which isn’t the same thing as saying that anything goes (but then again, what exactly does?), yet it’s not the kind of absolutism that infects too many.

How is a person who knows little enough about even how texts get written, redacted, and passed down, let alone about science, to read Genesis? An absolutist literalism is probably their best bet, however it’s very inadequate.

Glen Davidson
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p
Ben Smith - #4366

February 12^th 2010

I die a little inside whenever I hear someone compare “micro”/“macro” evolution…There is no difference! You can’t accept part of evolution without the whole of it! (Unless you don’t know the specifics of the science behind it, which I suppose is the reason most people bring this up)

Besides that….another great article, I learned a lot about Augustine’s views in my Religion and Evolution class I took recently, and a lot of that was reiterated here. Hope to see the 3rd part soon!
John VanZwieten - #4370

February 12^th 2010

@ Dan #4346

I finally this week got to read Augustine’s Genesis 1 commentary in whole, and I certainly think it is powerfully instructive not to “stick to one’s guns” regarding any given literal interpretation of the passage in the face of strong extra-biblical evidence to the contrary.

From just before the often-used quote:
Let us suppose that in explaining the words, “And God said, ‘Let there be light,’ and light was made,” one man thinks that it was material light that was made, and another that it was spiritual. As to the actual existence of “spiritual light” in a spiritual creature, our faith leaves no doubt; as to the existence of material light, celestial or supercelestial, even existing before the heavens, a light which could have been followed by night, there will be nothing in such a supposition contrary to the faith until un-erring truth gives the lie to it. And if that should happen, this teaching was never in Holy Scripture but was an opinion pro-posed by man in his ignorance.
John VanZwieten - #4371

February 12^th 2010

cont.

Augustine acknowleged significant difficulties arriving at a correct literal interpretation of Genesis 1, and so he points out that any such interpretation could be “an opinion pro-posed by man in his ignorance” rather than a true teaching of Holy Scripture.

What young-earth creationism does is insist that it’s own particular literal interpretation of Genesis be equated with _the_ true teaching of scripture and be required belief for all Christians—even in the face of massive evidence to the contrary. Augustine certainly would not have approved.
Brian - #4372

February 12^th 2010

Ben is spot on: there is no difference between, for example, the observed phenomenon of moths changing color over the course of a generation or two, and mice becoming men.

No difference at all.
Gregory Arago - #4373

February 12^th 2010

The micro- / macro- distinction is more significant than you give credit, Ben. To say ‘there is no difference’ is to trivialize the problem. Its a question of levels/layers, isn’t it?

Let’s step outside of biology.

Microeconomics & macroeconomics: to say that individual consumer choices can be extrapolated to ‘explain’ a nation’s economy is of course ridiculous. It is a kind of reverse reductionism, from smaller to larger entities, from bottom-to-top.

There are also the categories of mesa- and meta-, e.g. the post-modern belief that meta-narratives no longer hold or can be defended due to pluralism, etc.

‘Evangelical’ itself is a micro- term within a macro- faith, which is Christianity.

It might be better not to ‘die a little’ but to ‘learn a little’ on this topic.

I don’t accept the ‘whole’ of evolution, at least, not as a ‘theory of everything.’ If it is the same with you, then the best next step is to give examples of ‘things that don’t evolve.’
Unapologetic catholic - #4384

February 12^th 2010

“Let’s step outside of biology.”

Let’s not. Stay there for a minute and explain http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_descent

“It might be better not to ‘die a little’ but to ‘learn a little’ on this topic. “

Please do.
Michael Thompson - #4385

February 12^th 2010

I thought that “macro” evolution was really just an accumulation of “micro” evolutionary changes that produce speciation over time? am I off on this?
Gregory Arago - #4386

February 12^th 2010

I have no problem at all with common descent(s).

Nevertheless, macro- and micro- are fundamentally different categories.

Lots of micros- (accumulated) don’t get one to a macro- level. There is a meaningful ‘gap’ between them. One is fighting with language to protest otherwise.

We could speak of degreeism and anti-kindism here too, but that’s not the main point.

Unapologetic catholic can get stuck in biology if he or she prefers. I don’t feel such a desire, especially since I’m not a biologist.

We are surely veering off topic here anyway!
Argon - #4388

February 12^th 2010

Gregory Arago - “Nevertheless, macro- and micro- are fundamentally different categories. “

It’s more of a continuum—fuzzy in the middle ‘zones’. It’s like asking when cold becomes hot as you heat a pot of water.
Unapologetic Catholic - #4389

February 12^th 2010

Well since biology is easily capable of moving from what you call “micro”-evolution to “macro” evolution we shoudl indeed stick to biology since that’s actually the subject matter.

“especially since I’m not a biologist.”

That explains this erroneous stament: ” Lots of micros- (accumulated) don’t get one to a macro- level. There is a meaningful ‘gap’ between them.”

That statement is flatly, demostrably wrong.

Here’s the topic: “Is biological evolution among those things that we can discover for ourselves?”

The answer is yes. Has everybody here done it? No.

Is that an excuse? No.

How can you discover the facts about biologicval evolution for yourself?

Get educated (for free): http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/Biology/7-012Fall-2004/CourseHome/index.htm

There is no excuse for ignorance. There is no substitute for knowledge.
Gregory Arago - #4391

February 12^th 2010

Argon,

Well stated! We are indeed dealing with opposites when we speak of micro- and macro-, small and large. There is a risk of collapse in the continuum when we leave the extremes.

Is there discontinuity or not?

One doesn’t say: “that’s the whitest shade of black I’ve ever seen.” We have greys.

On the issue of ‘mutability’ or ‘common descent(s)’, one should say that species *are* mutable (it is “like confessing a murder”). How mutable they are seems to be an open question. What is a ‘species’?

Perhaps this is the issue that Daniel wants to raise. He uses the word ‘we’ wrt ‘modern evangelical scholars’ and says (in #4358) “we do take issue with the theory of macro-evolution.” Who does he really speak for?

As for me, I don’t know how life came from non-life, how organic came from inorganic, how human came from animal. These seem to be fundamentally different levels or ‘kinds’.
Ben Smith - #4393

February 13^th 2010

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB902.html

That phrases better what I was trying to say. Still, I have yet to hear anyone that is not an anti-evolutionist use either of the terms, and as a biology major at a leading research university you would think that I would have if it was something worth considering.
Gregory Arago - #4396

February 13^th 2010

The person who coined the terms ‘micro-evolution’ and ‘macro-evolution’ was not an anti-evolutionist!

The invention/creation/design of the terms in 1927 was by Russian entomologist Yuri Filipchenko.

What we find, however, in the Russian tradition, is a concentrated anti-Malthusianism, which was not manifest in ‘the west.’

L. Margulis said a few months ago in no uncertain terms: “English-speaking biologists still don’t get it.”

She is responsible for publishing in 2010 for the first time in English Boris M. Kozo-Polyansky’s 1924 book “Symbiogenesis: A New Principle of Evolution” - Harvard University Press.

Maybe that’s why you haven’t heard anything yet, Ben?
Kent Sparks - #4406

February 13^th 2010

Wow. A lot of conversation. I’m off to a soccer tournament in a few minutes, but let me say this, in general.

First, Augustine’s approach should be judged in its own context, not in ours. His approach to Genesis mixed literal and allegorical methods, using allegory especially when the text seemed to contradict the best science of his day. Whether one agrees with this method or not, it was how he worked things out. He certainly was interested in fitting Scripture to the Ptolemaic cosmology of his day.

Second, Scripture’s meaning is not perspicuous (clear and obvious). The fact that spirit-indwelt, Bible believing Christians disagree on so many basic theological subjects reveals that this is the case.

More later. I’m very sorry to be “out of the loop” this a.m. But I’ll be back ...

let the conversation continue.

Blessings,
Kent
Dan Baright - #4408

February 13^th 2010

Calvin’s treatment, as a prosecutor, of Michael Servitius might be of interest.
Dan - #4417

February 13^th 2010

To my original point, using Augustine to support theistic evolution is to me a misrepresentation. Yes, in his “Literal Meaning of Genesis” he acknowledged that Genesis 1 is difficult to interpret and should not be tied to tightly to a particular theory of “how God did it”. On the other hand, in his City of God he was quite willing to insist on a 6000 year old earth, the historicity of the Genesis flood and insisted strongly that physical death was a result of the fall of Adam. Young-earth creationists could cite Augustine for their position far more easily than Theistic evolutionists can.

Augustine allowed for allegorical interpretations in addition to the historical, but did not deny the historicity of the events of Genesis. Perhaps he was wrong. That would be a fair case to make. To suggest his view is supportive of TE is to put words in his mouth and misleads those who haven’t read “City of God” on the matter.
Kent Sparks - #4427

February 13^th 2010

Hello Dan,

Of course you’re right. Augustine (and Calvin for that matter) would have espoused all sorts of “science” (like a 6000 yr old earth) that might support those who are against evolution. But in principle, if one looks at their approach, it seems that they were much more influenced by the then scientific information of their day than modern fundamentlism. We know (as much as one can know in such matters) that Augustine, if he lived today, would embrace evolution as within the realm of Christian faith. How do we know? Because catholicism accepts it.

As for Calvin, he was so much of an intellectual rebel ... SO opposed to everything traditional ... I feel quite sure that he’d be somewhere close to where Calvin College’s science department is ... gain, evolution.

In other words, my point is not specifically what Augustine and Calvin believed ... my point is that their general approach would have taken the “secular” science seriously and would have embraced a flexibility with Scripture that is not found in fundamentalism.
MF - #4547

February 15^th 2010

Dr. Sparks,

I’d still like to hear from you on the argument I made above (4354 and 4355) and in more detail on your prior post regarding Calvin imputing outright error to Genesis 1. After reading his commentary, it seems plain to me that he takes a phenomenological approach, which is quite different than saying it is simply wrong.
eddy - #4738

February 17^th 2010

” could it be that the evolutionary process, rather than pointing us away from God, might actually impress us as the work of a mighty God?”

If the aim of this article is to draw people who deny God closer to Him, certainly the intended target are not biblical literalists.
0_o - #11176

April 26^th 2010

i think you’re wrong eddy. it was a direct result of the ridiculous rationale “hyper-literalists” use that i began to question and ultimately leave the faith. a great amount of damage is done by insisting science is wrong, and both augustine and calvin pointed that out. most of the atheists and agnostics i know would be much more receptive to the gospel message if they didn’t feel like it meant lobotomizing themselves to accept it. so IMO “biblical literalists” are indeed the appropriate target.

i appreciate your work on this dr. sparks, and look forward to the rest of the piece. pieces like this are instrumental in taking back christianity, and bringing some of us lost ones back home.

thanks
Herman (Dusty) Rhodes - #15107

May 25^th 2010

In order to understand about God’s creation, you need to understand what God is. God= all Truth. Most Christians think of God as being good. But Truth is more than good. Anything that can be proved is Truth, (Fiction can never be proved). We discovered the laws of physics recently and have just scratched the surface of them. People that discover some of the laws get the laws named after them, Like Ohm. But the laws that they discover are eternal laws and are a part of God. They have been in the universe and we have observed them all the way back to the big bang. God is made up of all laws of Truth, Physics, Chemistry, math, etc. etc. The laws that we observe all support each other; you can’t have one law without the rest. That says that they are a program and they could not have evolved one law at a time. God did not create the laws of nature; God is the laws of nature. From his laws, the universe evolved by a path of evolution, by it’s self. But first God had to calculate the structure of the universe and establish his laws in a special structure that would bring forth the universe and life. That shows the intelligence of God, the only know-it-all.
- Add Your Comment
- Science & the Sacred welcomes both critical and supportive voices in our comments section. However, please be sure to read our Ground Rules for Commenting before posting. We reserve the right to remove any comments we deem inappropriate.
- Comment:
  You have 1250 characters remaining.
- Name:
- Email (will not be published):
- URL:
- Remember me

Scripture, Evolution and the Problem of Science, Pt. 2

Part 2: “The Book of Scripture and the Book of Nature”

Filed Under:

Add Your Comment