here we go again

No one really bit on the evolution thing on Hydra. So in the spirit of stirring up the pot a bit, in homage to the obvious reverse-wisdom of Uncle Screwtape, we present without further ado the case for re-thinking a Christian response/incorporation/understanding to/of evolution. First off, this topic is so loaded and the individual words packed with so much contradictory meaning that it will take a great deal of preliminary explanation, reformulation, qualification, etc. But if that doesn't piss you off enough to make you stop reading this blog altogether (all 5 of you out there), then maybe we can have a fun ride together. Because the blog medium necessarily favors short entries and this topic necessarily favors a long, nuanced discussion, let's just agree that we'll have several entries on this same thing. It's not beating a dead horse exactly. It just takes a really long time to do something like this. So please bear with. More than that: please contribute. I know that more than a few of you have some experience in this area and I'd appreciate having my feet held to the fire on stuff I haven't explained well or don't know enough about. (I may have to plead ignorance, just so you know.) Are you ready? Question #1: Is it important for the thinking Christian to take a position on evolution? Can we not simply agree to disagree and yet still worship the same God in the same way? Is this not yet another topic regarding which true Christians can have differing opinions--neither necessarily closer to 'fact' than 'belief'? >Much of this seems to depend upon some definitions: what do we mean by 'evolution'? What do we mean by 'thinking Christian'? What do we mean by 'fact' vs. 'belief'? Given that it is nearly impossible to sufficiently define these terms, we'll have to set up some basics. The basics: Evolution could merely mean "change over time"--a definition few would have problems with. But evolution-ists usually would also insist on (a) common descent for all living creatures from one or a few original life forms and (b) the process of natural selection, which is undirected and proceeds through small changes in the genotype (micromutations) to produce all visible variation in and between species (macromutations). Rather than calling evolution totally random, however, most evolutionists would insist that evolution is built upon adaptation to the environment (e.g., if it gets really cold, those animals with greater ability to regulate their internal temperature would produce more viable offspring and increase their numbers in the population at the expense of organisms without the adaptation to cold). So using this very standard definition--common descent with adaptive modification over vast periods of time--there appear to be numerous conflicts between the literal Genesis account and evolution. A standard way to deal with this conflict is to divide this realm of knowledge (the origins and development of living things) into 'fact' (evolution) and 'belief' (Genesis) and then discrediting the side you disagree with. So evolutionists throw out Genesis while creationists throw out the scientific account of evolution. Eventually, as is the case now, the divide is so wide as to be unbridgable--those attempting to bridge it are labeled fools or worse. Yet, here I am advocating a "bridge" between these two ways of knowing the universe: Scripture and nature. I would go so far as to say a Christian who is in favor of loving God with their whole mind needs to seriously examine both sides of this issue sometime in their lives. For if science's interpretation of the natural world can be discounted wholesale in one realm (i.e., evolutionary theory), then why should it be any less heretical in other areas likewise founded on naturalistic principles--medicine for instance? A Christian should consider where they stand on the issue of evolution. A position one way or another on evolution should impact theology. Your theology. If, for example, the universe is essentially a clock-like mechanism that works only through natural processes, then there is no need for an infinite-personal God, no room for a personal relationship with Jesus. Your theology would be baseless. These reasons are, of course, why those advocating a creationist position lobby so strenuously against evolution. It is a very, very important issue. Yes, Christians can agree to disagree. Yes, there are more important issues to consider. But once you've been thinking about theology for a while, once you are 'settled' in your faith, you should revisit the Christian response to evolution. That was an attempt to answer the first question of why does this matter. But it doesn't get anywhere near an attempt to advocate something other than the either/or evolution/creation debate that's out there and well known already. We'll have to save that for later. Dig in.