new church life: september/october 2017
Quasi-religious. Overreaching. Reductionist. These are the very
things that make me cautious about the theory of evolution and irritated by
glib assertions that evolution explains everything. I am grateful to Mr. Phipps,
an ardent supporter of evolution, for acknowledging the legitimacy of these
concerns.
(WEO)
evolution versus darwinism
I think it is useful to draw a distinction between “evolution” as a scientific
theory, and Darwinism, which is an attitude and ideology (an “ism”) that looks
to the science of evolution for its validation.
In so far as the actual science is concerned, I have no more problem with
evolution than with the theory of relativity, quantum theory, germ theory, or
any other scientific theory. The problem is that the line between the strictly
scientific part of evolution, based on empirical evidence, and its many
ramifications – by which it is applied to practically every issue under the sun –
is very blurry. Where do the hard facts of evolution end and Darwinism begin?
The two are so intermingled that it’s virtually impossible to separate them.
The claim is made that evolution has nothing to do with religion and is
not incompatible with belief in God. But is that true? Darwin’s own faith was
certainly undermined by his theory. He was careful to avoid broadcasting
this for the sake of his wife, a devout Christian, but in private letters he spoke
frankly about it.
The problematic feature of Darwinism is “natural selection” and its
suggestion of atheism. The basic idea of “natural selection” seems reasonable,
even obvious – but it should be understood that nature isn’t doing the selecting
(the very word “select” implies conscious decision), but God operating in and
through nature.
Richard Dawkins and many other contemporary champions of it have
made it very clear that for them the theory is not at all compatible with
belief in God. And who can deny that the way it is taught in secular schools
and explained in popular books and television shows has had the effect of
insinuating atheism into the minds of the public at large?
Perhaps part of the reason evolution tends to be presented in a way
that strongly challenges religious faith is its proponents feel a need to push
back against the “creationism” that claims to represent Christian faith. But
creationism, based on a literal interpretation of Genesis, is also erroneous. To
New Church people, neither of these alternatives – flawed science attacking
flawed religion, or vice versa – is palatable.
(WEO)
464