Evolution and the Bible Authors: Jeff Gordon and Doug Rudy

We recommend Dennis McCallum’s review of The Language of God for another perspective on

this issue.

Abstract

Is evolution compatible with a faithful reading of scripture? We previously maintained that micro-

evolution is compatible with scripture, but macro-evolution is not compatible with the claim that

God created life.

We believe this view needs to be corrected, because scripture allows for the possibility that God

worked through natural processes like evolution to create life, including biological humanity.

Regarding the creation of humans, we propose that a faithful reading of Genesis one and two

allows for an evolutionary origin for Adam's body, but evolution cannot explain the origin of

spiritual life. God intervened to create spiritual life in Adam as he does in all humans. It seems

that the details in Genesis two indicate God's special intervention in the creation of Eve.

We agree with most Christians who believe in a creator God who worked through natural

phenomenon, like gravity, over billions of years to form stars, planets and solar systems. He

used these forces of nature that he created, to perform his creative work. He did it in such a way

that the earth could sustain life. But if so, then God could have worked through natural

processes, including evolution, to create the diversity of life we observe, including humans.

We are not arguing for evolution. But we believe scripture is not specific enough about "how"

God created to rule out evolution as a means of God's creativity. Those who oppose evolution

as incompatible with biblical Christianity run the risk of pressing the text beyond what is written

and placing an unnecessary barrier before non-Christian investigators. We believe Christians

should help people understand that evolution as an explanation for biological life is compatible

with scripture.

This paper explains the issues at stake with this question of evolution and scripture, and

defends the position proposed. Appendices provide additional background.

Proposed Position on Evolution and Scripture

God created the universe and all life forms, through some combination of natural processes

and supernatural intervention.

Genesis, including the first 11 chapters, is historical. We agree with and affirm the Chicago

statement on inerrancy on this subject.

Adam and Eve were historical people, from whom the human race descended.

Genesis one and two do not specifically describe how God created life or the human body.

A faithful reading of Genesis allows for the possibility that God created life, including the

human body, through a combination of evolution and divine intervention.

God created Adam as a spiritual being with a special act of creation when God made Adam

in His own image.

God created Eve from Adam's substance and imparted spiritual life to her.

Scripture is Compatible with Evolution

To form a sound position on evolution and creation it is helpful to begin by understanding some

of the mistakes interpreters make in bringing science and scripture together. We will survey

three prototypic mistakes that we should try to avoid. Then we will present a position on

Genesis one and two regarding origins, creation, and evolution. We will demonstrate that

scripture is compatible with an evolutionary view of the origin of life, including, with exceptions,

the origin of human life.

Three Errors in Relating Science and Scripture

Often these errors occur as new scientific discoveries emerge which challenge the accepted

interpretation of scripture.

Error 1: Surrendering the Authority of Scripture

The first error is to surrender the authority of scripture. On the Bible's own terms, it is not just

man-made speculation about spiritual truth, but authoritative communication from God.

Though that communication has occurred through various human authors, scripture asserts

unambiguously and consistently that "...no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own

interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the

Holy Spirit spoke from God." (2 Peter 1:20-21). "All scripture", asserts 2 Timothy 3:16, "is God-

breathed, profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction..." On the authority of scripture hangs

the entire foundation of biblical Christianity. Any erosion of that authority cuts the anchor line,

leaving us at the mercy of every wind of human intuition and opinion.

Christians have surrendered scriptural authority in response to challenges from science:

sometimes in a straightforward way, and sometimes more subtly.

In the late 19th and early 20th century, a tidal wave of liberal theology swept through the

church. This theological position was built on a straightforward rejection of the inspiration of

scripture. It was driven to a large extent by the sense that science contradicted scripture and

therefore disproved inspiration. This view taught that scripture was of value only as religious

mythology and not the accurate communication of truth.

Today in the west, the authority of scripture is under assault from a different direction, namely

spiritual relativism, or post-modernism. This attack is more subtle. It dichotomizes spiritual truth

from normal everyday objective truth. According to this view, it doesn't matter whether the bible

is scientifically accurate. This view believes that only the spiritual statements in scripture are

valuable, and of those only the ones found to be personally helpful.

But if the bible is factually false in the areas which can be tested, for example via science,

then we surrender the authority of scripture. If we cannot trust scripture where we can test it,

then we cannot trust it in those absolutely critical areas where it is difficult to test; namely its

statements about God's character, the afterlife, and salvation.

This is the position of scripture itself. The bible, taken on its own terms, denies the notion that

spiritual truth is different from everyday truth, and therefore refuses the relativistic way out of

potential conflicts with science. God insists from the beginning that we should look for, and that

he would provide, objectively verifiable evidence for the spiritual statements he would reveal

(Deuteronomy 18:21-22). As Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15, if the physical/historical event of the

resurrection of Christ did not actually occur, then none of the spiritual truths built upon it are

true:

"If Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain...for if the

dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised; and if Christ has not been raised, your

faith is worthless; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ

have perished. If we have hoped in Christ in this life only, we are of all men most to be pitied." (1

Corinthians 15:14-19 NASB)

We should apply the same rationale to other areas of life. There is no splitting of the two. And

therefore, by the bible's own terms, there should be no conflict between clear statements in

scripture and well-established scientific facts.

An even more subtle form of the surrender of scriptural authority occurs when Christians

adopt such a loose approach to the interpretation of scripture that, in effect, it can be made to

say anything. A current example of this mistake is found in Francis Collins' generally very good

book, The Language of God. In response to the difficulties in reconciling Genesis two with the

evidence for the evolutionary origin of humans from non-human hominids, he says:

"But other parts of the Bible, such as the first few chapters of the book of Genesis…have a

more lyrical and allegorical flavor, and do not generally seem to carry the marks of pure

historical narrative." (Francis Collins, The Language of God, p. 175)

Actually, from Genesis two forward there is no contextual or stylistic break from later

passages which we know to be history. There is no textual justification for this consignment of

the text to allegory, as purely symbolic and non-historical, and in fact the rest of scripture

repeatedly refers to the events in Genesis two and three as historical (Matthew 19:4-6, 1

Chronicles 1:1, 1 Timothy 2:13, Romans 5:14, to name just a very few). Collins is retreating

down this path to avoid what he believes to be conflict with science, but by doing so he

surrenders the authority of scripture. If any difficult passage can simply be declared symbolic,

then how can I know I will actually be raised from the dead if I place my faith in Christ? Perhaps

that, too, is purely symbolic?

As we consider the issue of evolution, we have to be on guard against a response which

surrenders the authority of scripture. This means that any interpretation of the relevant texts

must be legitimate, and that there should be a reasonable harmonization between that

interpretation and any well-established scientific facts regarding evolution.

Error 2: The Galileo Mistake

Christians have often made a second error in a deliberate effort to avoid the first. This error

occurs when Christians are confronted with scientific data that seems to contradict a passage in

scripture. Instead of considering other rational interpretations which would harmonize with the

new scientific data, some Christians declare war on the scientific data.

The most famous instance of this error occurred when the church denounced Galileo's

teaching on sun-centered (Copernican) astronomy. Galileo Galilei (1564-1642) was one of the

founders of the modern scientific movement. He was a brilliant and productive researcher and a

devout Christian. For centuries past, Ptolemaic astronomy had been the accepted scientific

view. By this view, the earth was at the stationary center of the universe, with the sun, planets,

and stars rotating around it on a complex system of crystal spheres. Quite reasonably,

Christians had interpreted passages like 1 Chronicles 16:30 to affirm Ptolemaic astronomy:

"Indeed, the world is firmly established; it will not be moved." (1 Chronicles 16:30 NASB)

However, a number of researchers began to argue that this view was incorrect, and that

instead the earth and the other planets were orbiting the sun. This provided a far simpler

explanation for the motion of the planets, and of course this is factually correct.

When Galileo published his research, the church had two choices. The first option would

have been to investigate the new scientific claims, re-evaluate their interpretation of passages

like 1 Chronicles 16:30, as Galileo himself urged, and affirm that a legitimate understanding of

that text actually harmonized with the new scientific view. And of course today, all Christians

read such verses this way--the surface of the earth forms a stable place to live, the fact of which

in no way contradicts Copernican astronomy. But instead the established church declared the

new scientific view heretical. Church leaders attacked it and anyone supporting it, including

Galileo. Brought to trial by the inquisition in 1633, Galileo recanted his scientific works on this

topic, though he later recanted his recantation. He spent the last seven years of his life under

house arrest. The Catholic Church issued a formal apology for this error in 1992. But this was

far too late to avoid the damage to Galileo and to countless people for whom the reputation of

Christ had been unnecessarily tarnished.

Francis Collins quotes Augustine. Writing more than 1000 years before the time of Galileo, he

precisely captures the terrible consequences of Galileo mistakes:

"Usually…a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other

elements of this world...now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for a [non-Christian] to hear

a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these

topics…and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which

people show a vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much

that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of the faith think our

sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss to those for whose salvation we toil, the

writers of our Scriptures are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian

mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish

opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books on matters concerning the

resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think

their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learned from experience

in the light of reason?" (Augustine, c390 AD)

The cost from such mistakes is indeed high, and they have occurred repeatedly through

church history. Though these mistakes seem easy to see in retrospect, we would be well-

advised to take seriously our own susceptibility to making such mistakes today.

One extremely costly example of a Galileo mistake occurring today in western evangelical

churches is young earth creationism and flood geology. Here, Christians refuse to consider

alternative, legitimate interpretations for the usage of the word day (Hebrew yom) in Genesis

one, and insist on interpreting that word to mean 24-hour days, in a strict chronological

sequence. By implication of this interpretation, the universe must be no more than some 10,000

years old, a view which is (to say the very least) in serious conflict with science. Most scientists

reckon the universe to be some 15 billion years old, and the earth some 4.5 billion years old.

Most non-Christians who believe that they must accept young-earth creationism in order to

take the bible seriously will choose instead to reject biblical Christianity...the very unnecessary

tragedy Augustine warned against.

As we deal with the question of evolution, we must avoid a Galileo mistake. This means that

we must avoid confusing our own preconceptions about the issue of evolution and creation with

what the text actually requires. Careful interpreters must be ready to study the text and grant

latitude where the text allows.

Error 3: False Dichotomy—God's Providence or Natural Processes?

Many Christians make a false dichotomy between God's providence and natural processes.

They claim that creation of man must be a completely special act outside natural processes.

They mistakenly oppose an evolutionary explanation for the creation of the human body

(biological Adam) because in their minds, a natural explanation for humanity excludes God's

creative activity. They fail to see the scriptural emphasis on God's presence in the natural order.

Throughout Scripture we find a connection between God's providence and the workings of

nature: God is present in the natural order. Nature demonstrates something of His character

and his attributes (Romans 1:18-20) and scripture states that God's creative power is at work in

nature. We see this particularly in the formation of humans through the process of conception

and fetal development. We find a few references helpful in Job:

"Your hands fashioned and made me altogether, And would You destroy me? Remember

now, that You have made me as clay; and would You turn me into dust again? Did You not pour

me out like milk and curdle me like cheese; clothe me with skin and flesh, and knit me together

with bones and sinews?" (Job 10:8-11 NASB)

It is quite clear that Scripture here and elsewhere (Job 31:15; 33:6; Psalm 139:13-16; Isaiah

44:24) holds that God is active in the physical process of human fetal development: a natural

process. So we find his creative nature and providence active in this fascinating natural process.

In fact in Job 10:8,9 he uses the same word for "made" (asah) that Genesis 1:25, 26 use to

refer to the creation of all land animals and to man. In Job asah refers to the natural process of

conception and development (unless one holds for a special creative act in the formation of

Job). Therefore asah in Genesis one could refer to a natural process rather than a special act of

creation.

We find that Scripture attributes many other natural processes to God's power and

providence. In Job 36:27 he writes, "For He draws up the drops of water, they distill rain from

the mist," and thus attributes the water cycle to God. In Nehemiah 9:6 we read, "You alone are

the LORD. You have made the heavens…" Nehemiah attributes the formation of heavenly

bodies to the Lord and we need not look outside God's laws of nature to find explanations for

the formation of heavenly bodies.

We need to grasp this idea of God's providence being manifest in nature to properly

understand a passage like Isaiah 44:24 "Thus says the LORD, your Redeemer, and the one

who formed you from the womb, 'I, the LORD, am the maker of all things, Stretching out the

heavens by Myself And spreading out the earth all alone…'" Here we see the seamless

association of God forming a man in his mother's womb (a natural process) and His creation of

the heavens. This is so significant because it demonstrates that from God's perspective we

need not make distinctions between his divine providence and natural processes.

Those who see God's providence in the natural order need not fear scientific discovery. We

welcome discovery because it sheds light on how God's universe works. Of course we must

carefully and critically evaluate the data and the sometimes hasty conclusions made by

scientists. But in the final analysis, science will tell us more about God's creative

nature. Therefore in the realm of biology and specifically evolution, we need to be open to

discovery and the possibility that God created the human body through a natural process that

could include evolution.

What could not occur through evolution or a natural process is the advent of spiritual life. The

infusion of spiritual life occurred when God created Adam in his own image such that he lived as

a physical (the human body) and spiritual being. We are simply saying that it is possible, and

consistent with Scripture, that God created Adam's body in part through evolution, and then

imparted spiritual life to him.

Genesis one and two and Evolution

Genesis 1

Do Genesis one and two preclude evolution as a means of creation?

First let's consider how much of Genesis one consists of God creating through natural

processes. In Genesis 1:6, God creates earth's atmosphere: "Let there be an expanse in the

midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters." In Genesis 1:16 God

creates the stars and planets: "God made the two great lights, the greater light to govern the

day, and the lesser light to govern the night; He made the stars also." Most interpreters agree

that God created these objects through what we consider natural means (i.e. known laws of

nature).

Now let's turn to the sixth day of creation. At this point we find the creation of land animals

and man. Genesis 1:24 reads, "Then God said, 'Let the earth bring forth living creatures after

their kind: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after their kind'; and it was so."

This statement, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures," seems to indicate that God created

living creatures from existing substances of the earth. The text does not tell how he created

them, and does not indicate specific creation of each type of creature. Therefore it does not

preclude creation through evolution.

Some interpret the phrase "after their kind" to indicate the creation of specific species or

phyla, and therefore to contradict evolution. But this is an overly restrictive view of the text. The

phrase is telling us that living things reproduce This is a distinctive of living things compared to

non-living matter. But if God could have created the stars through natural processes, then he

could have created the "kinds" through natural processes like evolution and then they would

reproduce "after their kind."

Those who insist that phrases like these can only refer to a special act of creation are making

the second and third errors we warn against. They are more restrictive than the text requires,

thereby picking an unnecessary fight with science. And they are refusing to acknowledge that

God's creative activity is often expressed through natural processes.

In Genesis 1:25 we read, "God made the beasts of the earth after their kind, and the cattle

after their kind, and everything that creeps on the ground after its kind; and God saw that it was

good." From this passage we conclude that God made the beasts, but we do not know how he

created. Did he make each individually as a special act of creation, or could he have used a

slow natural process to create the beasts? The text does not provide the answer. It is interesting

to note that the word asah, translated "made," in Genesis 1:25-26 is also used in Job 10:8-9

(see above under Dichotomy) to refer to God "making" Job through the process of conception

and fetal development: a natural process. We conclude that asah is not a technical term used in

Genesis one to depict special acts of creation, but could be used in Genesis one to describe a

God-created natural process to form the beasts, just as it is used elsewhere.

In Genesis 1:26 we read "Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our

likeness…" The same word, asah, is used for "make" in this instance so that same argument

from Genesis 1:25 applies. Asah is not a technical term and therefore how God made man is

not described in Genesis. No matter how God created the biological body, we know he created

man and woman distinct from the other creatures because he made them in His own image.

This indicates spiritual life that distinguishes humanity and we therefore believe special

intervention by God was required to impart spiritual life. Spiritual life cannot evolve since it is not

physical so that one could not look to evolution as a source of spiritual life.

Genesis 2

The statement in Genesis 2:7 provides more specific information about the creation of man.

Here we read, "Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his

nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being."

One could interpret this literally, to mean, "God took dust and made Adam in a moment of

time." We believe that is a possible interpretation, but it does not offer the best fit with scripture

and scientific facts. When they ate of the tree they did not die physically, but through that act

they ushered in spiritual and physical death to humanity.

First of all the word, yatsar, translated "formed," is used in a similar fashion in 2:19 where we

read, "Out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast…" So, the idea that God created

man from dust and the beasts from the ground is consistent. Those who insist that 2:7 must

refer to the special creation of Adam must also hold that 2:19 refers to special creation of the

individual animals brought to Adam for naming.

If we do not take a narrow interpretation, then we can say, at least, that God created the

beasts and the human body from existing materials of the earth. We can also conclude that

yatsar is not a technical term describing special creation. In fact, the word is used, like asah, to

describe God working through known natural means. In Psalm 139:13 we read, "For You

formed (yatsar) my inward parts; You wove me in my mother's womb." So we find that yatsar,

like asah can refer to a natural process.

Therefore when we look at the text of Genesis 2:7, describing Adam's creation, we conclude

that God created him from existing materials (from dust), but we cannot know exactly how God

created him. We cannot look at the word yatsar and conclude that Adam was the result of a

special act of creation outside the realm of natural phenomenon since yatsar elsewhere depicts

the natural process of conception and development. Yatsar could describe a natural process

like evolution.

Now let's turn to the phrase in Genesis 2:7 "[God]…breathed into his nostrils the breath of

life; and man became a living being." Are we limited again to the narrow interpretation which

would indicate a special creation from dust and God granting biological and spiritual life from his

breath into Adam's nostrils? The narrow interpretation raises a few important questions.

First of all, why would God need to breathe life with a literal breath of air? And if he did, how

could air impart life in the complicated way we understand life (cellular respiration and function

on a microscopic and organ system level)? Most people would agree that this statement is at

least in part metaphorical.

The other issue is that life and death in Genesis depict spiritual as well as physical condition.

In the most immediate context of Genesis two, we find that the concept of life as spiritual life

prevails. God told Adam and Eve not to eat of the tree or they would die (Genesis 2:17). When

they ate of the tree they did not die physically, but through that act they ushered in spiritual and

physical death to humanity.

So when we read in Genesis 2:7 "that man became a living being" we do not believe we are

constrained to the position that God formed the biological and spiritual parts of Adam at that

moment and thus made him a living being. God could have created Adam's physical body over

time and then breathed spiritual life into him in a moment of time-he became a living being and

fully man as God intended.

And what about the narrative of the creation of Eve? There are two interpretive options: first,

that the account of God making Eve from Adam’s rib is figurative, and second, that the account

is describing an actual supernatural intervention by God. The first option is untenable unless

you also consider the entire account of Adam’s creation to be figurative as well, which we

believe is an unsupportable interpretation. The whole of scripture indicates that Adam was an

actual individual and that the events described in his life in Genesis 2, 3, and 4 are historical.

But given that constraint, the only reasonable understanding of the account of the creation of

Eve is that it, too, is to be understood literally. If Adam was in a garden, spoke with God, named

the animals, had a son named Cain and another named Seth, then it tortures the text to say that

all of those elements of the narrative are to be understood literally but that Adam’s sleep and

God’s removal of the rib are to be understood figuratively. And of course the God of scripture is

perfectly capable of performing this supernatural intervention. Such an origin for Eve, while not

scientifically verifiable or falsifiable, does harmonize with the extremely low level of genetic

variation observed in human populations.

Summary

We conclude from a careful study of Genesis one and two that we should not preclude

evolution as a means through which God may have created the physical Adam. Adam was

created in God's image: a biological being who could have been formed over time under God's

guidance of nature, and then imparted with spiritual life by the Creator. We conclude that

Genesis one and two do not preclude evolution as an explanation for the origin of life.

Appendices

Appendix A: Scientific Data Regarding Evolution

Our primary concern is to correctly understand the latitude in the text of scripture, and to

grant that latitude regarding creation and evolution. However, the scientific issues are important.

This section summarizes our views on the scientific case regarding biological evolution.

Brief Summary of the Scientific Data

Micro-evolution (natural selection works on genetic variation in a population to make the

population more fit) is a well-established scientific fact. Indeed, many have commented that

"survival of the fittest" is almost a tautology, true by definition. Examples like bacterial antibiotic

resistance demonstrate this basic mechanism of evolution

Macro-evolution (that all living things are produced from a single or a small number of

simpler single-celled organisms through genetic mutation and natural selection) is a larger

claim, and one open to more objections. The ability of genetic mutation to originate new

complexity remains controversial to many. The fossil record seems to indicate the relatively

sudden appearance of new forms, which then tend to undergo little important change. This is

not what evolutionary theory would predict. Nevertheless, the consensus among scientists is

that these difficulties will be overcome.

The origin of life from non-living chemicals by natural processes is not technically an

element of evolution (evolution begins only when self-replicating organisms come into

existence), but it is commonly presented as part of the evolutionary view of the origin of life.

There is no very plausible theory for how this transition occurred. Our understanding of the

minimal requirements for the first self-replicating cell underscores the difficulties faced by any

such theory.

Human evolution (that humans are descended from non-human animals by an

evolutionary process of mutation and natural selection) is no doubt the most philosophically

controversial aspect of the whole issue of evolution. But from a scientific standpoint, there are a

number of strong lines of evidence that this is in fact what has occurred.

Evidence for Evolution: Molecular Genetics and Evolution

Provided by Mike Sullivan

In his book, The Language of God, Francis Collins (Francis Collins, The Language of God

(New York, New York: Simon & Schuster/Free Press, 2007), 304 pages.), director of the Human

Genome Project, offers evidence that humans share common ancestry with all other life forms.

While we don’t know enough about genetics to endorse Collins’ summary, Christians should be

conversant with the evidence he puts forth.

A comparison of our DNA with that of other life forms reveals a “tree of life.”

There are highly significant matches between the protein-coding regions (genes) of human

DNA and mammalian DNA. There are fewer matches with fish genes, fewer still with fruit flies,

and so on down to roundworms and bacteria. The non-protein-coding regions of human DNA

("junk" DNA) do not match nearly as well with the junk DNA of other life forms. The table below

summarizes the % similarity between our genome and those of other life forms:

Protein-coding Gene

Sequence

Random DNA Sequences Between

Genes (a.k.a. "Junk" DNA

Chimp 100 98

Dog 99 52

Mouse 99 40

Chicken 75 4

Fruit Fly 60 0

Roundworm 55 0

According to Collins, when computer software uses data like this to compare the genomes

of different organisms, the result is a tree of life similar to the one scientists have discerned from

comparative anatomy and the fossil record.

Genetic mutations provide evidence for common descent.

If a genetic mutation does not affect function, it will not be harmful to the organism (a

selective disadvantage). Therefore these mutations should be common and accumulate in

organisms over time.

Genetic mutations that do affect function will usually be harmful to the organism and rarely

helpful (a selective advantage). Therefore mutations that affect function should be relatively

rare.

If these basic evolutionary assumptions are correct, mutations should be plentiful in non-

coding regions of our DNA and rare in the coding regions, and that's exactly what we find. Even

within protein-coding regions, some mutations are "silent," (they do not affect the formation of

amino acids and proteins). Since “silent” mutations are harmless and do not cause a selective

disadvantage, they should survive more often than mutations that change (typically for the

worse) the production of amino acids and proteins. Again, this is exactly what we find.

Collins concludes, "The study of genomes leads inexorably to the conclusion that we humans

share a common ancestor with other living things." (p. 134)

Critics attribute the similarities between human and animal genomes to a common designer.

If a programmer employs a useful subroutine in a variety of different software applications, why

can’t God incorporate design principles used in other life forms to construct human beings?

Collins and other molecular biologists would counter with the following arguments for

common ancestry.

When you compare genomes of humans and mice, "the order of genes along the human

and mouse chromosomes is generally maintained over substantial stretches of DNA."

(134) “While one might argue that the order of genes is critical in order for their function to

occur properly, and therefore a designer might have maintained that order in multiple acts of

special creation, there is no evidence from current understanding of molecular biology that this

restriction would need to apply over such substantial chromosomal distances“(134-135).

Sequences of DNA called "transposons" or "jumping genes" can copy and insert

themselves in various locations in the genome of a single cell. When this happens, the jumping

gene is usually truncated and unable to function properly. Over time, jumping genes mutate

(usually with no ill effect). Those that show signs of many mutations are known as ancient

repetitive elements (AREs). We've found identical AREs truncated at the same location between

the same genes in the human and mouse genome. This is another strong indicator of a

common ancestor.

"Unless one is willing to take the position that God has placed these decapitated AREs in

these precise positions to confuse and mislead us, the conclusion of a common ancestor for

humans and mice is virtually inescapable." (137)

A comparison of human and chimp chromosomes yields a 96% similarity and evidence of

common descent.

Chimpanzees have 24 chromosome pairs as shown below. We have 23.

Our 2nd chromosome (circled in the diagram below) is very similar to two smaller chimp

chromosomes (2a and 2b). Chimp chromosomes have a special sequence at their tips that is

absent in the human genome with one exception—the middle of our 2nd chromosome, where it

appears that two smaller chimp-like chromosomes have been fused.

See p. 138ff of The Language of God for additional genetic evidence supporting common

descent.

Collins concludes that we have a common ancestor with other life forms, but "DNA sequence

alone, even if accompanied by a vast trove of data on biological function, will never explain

certain special human attributes, such as the knowledge of the Moral Law and the universal

search for God. Freeing God from the burden of special creation does not remove Him as the

source of the things that make humanity special, and of the universe itself. It merely shows us

something of how he operates." (140-141)

Appendix B: Glossary of Terms

Adapted from www.genetichealth.com.

Amino acid: Amino acids are small molecules that make up proteins. There are over 100

different amino acids, but our body uses only 20 amino acids to make all of its proteins. Our

body can manufacture some of these 20 amino acids, but others we have to get from outside

sources such as food or supplements. Our genes determine the sequence of amino acids in a

protein. This sequence determines what shape the protein takes, and what function that protein

serves in the body.

Base pair: Bases are the components that make up DNA. There are 4 bases: Adenine (A),

Cytosine (C), Guanine (G), and Thymine (T). In a DNA molecule, the bases pair with each other

to hold together the two strands in a double strand of DNA. Base "A" always pairs with "T," and

"G" always pairs with "C." Base pairs are also used as a unit of measure to indicate a length of

DNA. A piece of DNA that is 10bp long has 10 base pairs in it. Likewise, a gene that is 2Kb long

has 2,000 base pairs. The human genome has around 3 billion base pairs.

Chromosome: A strand of DNA contained within a cell. Each chromosome contains many

thousands of genes. In humans, there are a total of 46 chromosomes, half of which come from

each parent. Chromosomes come in pairs. We have 23. 22 of them are "autosomes" and one is

a sex chromosome (either X or Y). The combined total of all chromosomes in a cell is the

genome.

Chromosomes have most of the cell's DNA (mitochondria and chloroplasts also contain DNA

and genes).

Genome: All of the genetic material (DNA) contained in a full set of chromosomes in an

organism. In humans, about three billion base pairs make up our genome.

Gene: A segment of DNA (a string of bases) that contains the instructions to make a specific

protein (or part of a protein). Genes are contained on chromosomes. Chromosomes, and the

genes on those chromosomes, are passed on from parent to child. Errors in the DNA that make

up a gene are called mutations and can lead to diseases.

Mutation: A change in the sequence of bases. A mutation can change the protein-building

instruction contained in the gene. Some mutations have little or no effect on the protein, while

others cause the protein not to function at all.

Protein: A molecule that makes up many parts of every cell in the body. Examples of

proteins include hormones, enzymes, hair, and antibodies. Proteins are made up of 20 different

types of individual units called amino acids. It is the order of these amino acids in a protein that

determines what form and function a protein has. Each gene holds the instructions for making a

single protein.

Genetic Health (www.genetichealth.com) has a simple introduction to genetics that most

people would find useful.

Appendix C: A History of the Evolution Debate

Darwin's Origin of Species, published in 1859, offered an alternative explanation for the origin

of life and created a philosophical firestorm. The debate polarized many people because

Darwinism became a platform for many and varied attacks on theism, Christianity, and biblical

morality. One can see why so many Christians eschewed any association with Darwin or

evolution. Scholars attributed religious development to evolutionary principles, proposing that

monotheism evolved from polytheism. Some of the most influential (and destructive) people of

the era like Nietzsche, Marx, and Hitler embraced evolutionary theories and atheism. In fact,

Marx considered dedicating Das Kapital to Darwin.1 In America, the eugenics movement,

advocating natural selection, enacted compulsory sterilization of the mentally or physically unfit

in thirty-two states. "In short, scientists offered a means to breed better people."2 Catholics and

conservative Christians stood together to fight the proliferation of eugenics. In view of these

events, one can see why Christians viewed Darwinian evolution as a threat to society and their

faith.

The threat of secular culture and science to the Christian world view helped fuel the fires of

Christian fundamentalism. Leaders like D.L. Moody, advocated for withdrawal from secular

culture. They argued for an increasing separation between the secular and sacred life. They

advocated that "Christians avoid worldly activities like dancing, card playing, drinking, pandering

to the lusts of the flesh, and atheistic teachings such as evolution."3 We find very little

engagement on evolution based on scripture exegesis, but more an attack on evolution because

of the association with atheism and naturalism.

The Scopes Monkey Trial of 1925 polarized the nation on the issue of evolution and creation.

From that point, for most Christians, belief in evolution as a mechanism for the origin of life was

incompatible with a faithful interpretation of scripture.

In A Case for Faith, Lee Strobel reveals the sharp divide between faith and evolutionary

thought today. He quotes Michael Denton, a molecular biologist and physician:

"As far as Christianity was concerned, the advent of the theory of evolution….was

catastrophic…..The decline in religious belief can probably be attributed more to the

propagation and advocacy by the intellectual and scientific community of the Darwinian version

of evolution than to any other single factor."4

He also quotes Richard Dawkins, a vicious opponent of faith, who declares:

"By coupling undirected, purposeless variation to the blind, uncaring process of natural

selection, Darwin made theological or spiritual explanations of the life process superfluous."

Dawkins concludes that Darwin made it possible to be "an intellectually fulfilled atheist."5

Strobel goes on in his book to argue against evolution as a means of origins and, in a

convincing way, argues for Intelligent Design as an explanation for life.

So today we face this deeply polarized debate over evolution and creation. Atheists embrace

Darwin as their hero, so how could any Christian believe that Darwin's theories are valid? Is it

possible that Christians have mistakenly alienated the scientific world on this issue and that God

could have used evolution as a means of creation? B.B. Warfield and many others embraced

evolution in the late 1800's, but their voice was overshadowed by the rhetoric opposing

Darwinism. In defending the faith, twentieth century Christians had many victories, but seem to

have mistakenly rejected evolution as a possible means through which God created the human

body.

The Lost Voice of Reason: B.B. Warfield

Warfield is best known for his collaboration with Hodge in affirming orthodox doctrines of

inspiration. Their essay entitled Inspiration was published in 1881. Warfield argued that the

"…Bible is fully inspired. Absolutely without error, it is to be regarded not just as a bearer of the

Word of God, but as the Word itself."6 He argued this position in the face of liberal (naturalistic)

theology for over forty years and is known as a staunch defender of scripture. The Chicago

statement finds its origins in Hodge and Warfield's work.

Warfield also believed in evolution as a means of origins and published many essays on the

issue. He also reviewed others' writings on the topics of science and evolution. We find that

Warfield believed strongly that God created everything and as a staunch Calvinist believed in

God's providence. He saw providence in creation and nature. Therefore he believed that one

need not fear science. For Warfield, any scientific findings that describe the inner workings of

nature would shed light on the nature of God. Christians should therefore welcome scientific

discovery and, in faith, find ways to meld faith and science. "To him, it was utter nonsense to

think that those who studied the earth, the universe, or the history of humankind were not also

studying the works of God."7

Warfield aligned himself with Darwinian thinking on natural selection from early on. He

worked with his father to publish a work on the breeding of short horn sheep and in 1873 wrote,

"Nature's selection, while always in favor of the maintenance of the animals in the best manner,

yet is impartial, and under ordinary circumstances would maintain an average." His later essays

clearly expounded his position on evolution and he published his first formal entry into the

subject in 1888.

This essay opened the door for orthodox Christians to consider evolution and theistic origins.

"Warfield was convinced that save for the narrative dealing with Eve's creation, that there was

no 'general statement in the Bible or any part of the account of creation, either as given in

Genesis 1 and 2 or elsewhere alluded to, that need be opposed to evolution.'"8 That same year

Warfield reviewed The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, and was deeply moved by Darwin's

tragic loss of faith in the face of scientific evidence. Warfield carefully analyzed Darwin and

concluded that his departure from a biblical world view was born out of a literalistic reading of

Genesis and that "Darwin displayed a 'total misapprehension of divine providence, and…a very

crude notion of final cause.'"9

In 1901 Warfield published a formal position on evolution at a time when Christianity and

science were increasingly at odds. His position on evolution and creation find their foundation in

God's providence. Warfield concludes, "…the Christian man has as such no quarrel with

evolution when confined to its own sphere as a suggested account of the method of the divine

providence."10 He put forth that life unfolded at the hands of God through three different modes

of divine action:

Ex nihilo — out of nothing

Theistic evolution — the providentially controlled unfolding of nature

Mediate creation — "God acted or intervened, with already existing material to bring

something new into existence that could not have developed from the forces latent in the

material itself."11

In a later essay Warfield clarified his position on the creation of man: God created the matter

of the universe with the forces of nature ex nihilo, through evolution he providentially formed

man, and by a special act of mediate creation he created the soul of humans.

"If under the directing hand of God a human body is formed at a leap by propagation from

brutish parents [that is, per saltum evolution (evolution by mutation)], it would be quite

consonant with the fitness of things that it should be provided by his creative energy with a truly

human soul."12

Warfield's later writings affirmed his position on evolution along side his high view of scripture.

Noll also cites J.I. Packer who defended the early chapters of scripture as inerrant and said that

"he could not see anything that 'bears on the biological theory of evolution one way or the

other.'"13

There is much to commend Warfield's position on creation and evolution. He believed that

God created matter in such a way that biological systems would emerge through evolution and

in it all he sees providence. He believed that God intervenes in nature and particularly in the

creation of the human soul. Man could have emerged through the providence of evolution to a

"brutish" form, but only through a special act of creation could he be called a man (mediate

creation).

It is unfortunate that B.B. Warfield's perspective was lost in the rhetoric of the debates over

evolution. Had his well-conceived and biblical perspective have been followed, much less

polarity would persist today and more scientists might be Christians.

Footnotes

1 Ravi Zacharias. A Shattered Visage. Wolgemuth & Hyatt: Brentwood. 1990. 16.

Ravi Zacharias. A Shattered Visage. Wolgemuth & Hyatt: Brentwood. 1990. 16.

2 Edward Larson in Demy and Stewart. Genetic Engineering. Kregel: Grand Rapids. 1999. 106.

Edward Larson in Demy and Stewart. Genetic Engineering. Kregel: Grand Rapids. 1999. 106.

Edward Larson in Demy and Stewart. Genetic Engineering. Kregel: Grand Rapids. 1999. 106.

3 John A, Moore. From Genesis to Genetics. University of California Press. Berkeley. 2002.

147.

4 Michael Denton in Lee Strobel. The Case for Faith. 89.

5 Strobel. 89.

6 Mark Noll and David Livingstone. B.B Warfield: Evolution, Science and Scripture. Baker:

Grand Rapids. 20, 21.

7 Noll. 24.

8 Noll. 29.

9 Noll. 32.

10 Noll. 35.

11 Noll. 35.

12 Noll. 37.

13 Noll. 38.