The increasing number of overtly anti-evolution articles in The Testimony [1] in the last year suggests that the magazine committee is aware that an increasing number of believers have accepted the fact of evolution, and is now engaged in a desperate rearguard effort to try to reverse this trend. The fact that these articles betray an appalling ignorance of the subject merely confirms that they are simply out of their depth on this subject, and have no credible means of defending their anti-evolution position. The latest attack comes from David Burges, whose April 2014 article [2] attempts to show that 'theistic evolution' is incompatible with Biblical faith. His attack merely confirms his gross ignorance of evolutionary biology, grossly misrepresents how Christadelphian evolutionary creationists read the Bible, and shows a flawed grasp of Paul's teaching on Adam.
Special creationists, sensing that they simply do not have evidence on their side will resort to emotive language and rhetoric to paper over the holes in their argument. Burges employs three strategies in his opening argument in order to suitably poison the discussion and bias his readers. The first is to equate science with a belief system by the use of words such as 'orthodox scientific thinking' or 'scientific orthodoxy' as seen in the abstract and second paragraph.
The second is to subtly conflating methodological naturalism (searching for natural causes for natural phenomena which is entirely uncontroversial among believing scientists) with philosophical naturalism (the a priori belief that the supernatural does not exist):
"…the society in which we live chooses to believe that science has proved that the universe itself came into existence by purely 'natural' forces, and that all living things have been crafted by the undirected process of evolution by natural selection. There is no requirement for a divine hand in such a view, which is vigorously promoted by the advocates of atheism and humanism." [3]
Burges' assertion betrays profound ignorance of the concept of Divine agency in which God readily employs secondary causes to effect his will. Robert Roberts - who opposed evolution - nonetheless grasped this essential point:
A first idea to be mastered in apprehending the ways of providence is the relation of the universe to God. All things are in Him, and He, though personally located in the highest heaven, is everywhere present by the Spirit, which is His substance in diffusion, so to speak. Nevertheless, God is different from His works. Creation, as organised by Him and in Him has a fixed nature, in virtue of which it has, by His appointment, an independent action, so to speak. Results ensue from certain conditions without His volition participating in the results. For example: you place a strip of paper in the candle flame: ignition follows. The ignition did not require the will of Almighty God to produce it. It resulted from conditions originally established by His will, but now having permitted independence of action. The same thing is illustrated in the million occurrences of everyday experience. It is essential to recognise it. It constitutes the platform of evidence. There could be no such conception as providence if every thing were due to direct Divine volition. [4]
The third rhetorical trick Burges employs is the tiresome equation of evolution (and science) with atheism. Burges overlooks the fact that the Big Bang theory - formulated by Georges Lemaître - a Catholic priest - was initially rejected by many physicists, most famously the atheist Fred Hoyle - because in postulating a finite universe, it was perceived to carry overtly theistic overtones. With respect to evolution, Burges' assertion that mainstream Christian churches have "meekly acquiesced and adopted a compromise position" is inflammatory and grossly inaccurate. Many of Darwin's earliest and most ardent supporters were theologically conservative Christians. As historian of science David Livingstone notes:
"Darwin’s cause in America was championed by the thoroughgoing Congregationalist evangelical Asa Gray, who set himself the task of making sure that Darwin would have “fair play” in the New World. Let us be clear right away that this cannot be dismissed as capitulation to the social pressure of academic peers. To the contrary, Gray had to take on one of the most influential naturalists in America at the time to maintain his viewpoint – none other than Louis Agassiz, a Harvard colleague who vitriolically scorned Darwin’s theory. But Gray was not alone. Many of his countrymen, associates in science and brothers in religion took the same stand. And indeed even those who ultimately remained unimpressed with if not hostile to Darwin were quite prepared to admit that evolution had occurred. It is surely not without significance that Christian botanists, geologists, and biologists – that is to say, those best placed to see with clarity the substance of what Darwin had proposed – believed the evidence supported an evolutionary natural history." [5]
Science historian Michael Keas notes that some of the original contributing authors to The Fundamentals [6] accepted evolution, and saw no essential contradiction between the two positions. Evangelical pastor / educator RA Torrey, while sceptical about evolution nonetheless saw no contradiction between these views:
While I am not an evolutionist in any sense, I have known men intimately who were as sound on the Scriptures and on all fundamental doctrines of our faith as I am who were at the same time evolutionists. I think they are mistaken, but I can see how a man can believe thoroughly in the absolute infallibility of the Bible and still be an evolutionist of a certain type. [7]
Presbyterian theologian James Orr expressed support for a 'theistic' form of evolution. Keas notes:
In his “Science and Christian Faith” essay, Orr also proposed a resolution to the apparent conflict between biological evolution and the Bible. Significant evidence points to “some form of evolutionary origin of species—that is some genetic connection of higher with lower forms,” but he thought that this change was limited (without specifying how limited). He also argued that God directs the mechanisms of evolution toward purposeful ends. “Evolution,” he concludes, “is coming to be recognized as but a new name for ‘creation’ …” [8]
Arguably the most prominent contributing author to The Fundamentals was theologian BB Warfield, whose work on inspiration [9] is still cited positively today in evangelical Protestant circles. Warfield, like Torrey did not regard evolution and Christianity as being opposed:
“I do not think that there is any 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. [10]
Burges' assertion that mainstream Christianity 'capitulated' to evolution is a grossly inaccurate reading of the evidence. As Livingstone states, 19th century Christians accepted the fact of the evolution because the evidence even then overwhelmingly supported an evolutionary natural history.
Conflating a theology of creation with the mechanism of creation
Burges continues by asserting that "[c]reative activity through His spirit is a fundamental attribute of God, inseparable from the other familiar aspects of His character such as love, mercy, justice, and truth" [11] and appeals to a 'non-exhaustive list of seventy creation passages" in a 2001 special issue of The Testimony almost entirely dedicated to special creationism. [12] Burges has blundered badly here by conflating a theology of creation with a science of creation. That God is the creator of the universe no Christian doubts. The question here is the mechanism God employed, and Burges has made a huge mistake by implicitly reading into these statements scientifically accurate statements about how creation took place. Given this, the burden of proof lies on Burges to show that these statements would be of use to science to construct a robust theory of origins that would have explanatory and predictive power superior to that of common descent and the modern synthetic theory of evolution.
Burges' ignorance of Divine agency, in which Divine decrees can be effected by secondary causes is painfully evidence when he tries to read into passages such as Job 39:5-6, 17 and Psa 104:14,16 evidence that "God claims an intimate participation in nature" or asserts that the repeated references to "created", "made", and "formed" are evidence of a "close personal involvement" the the creation and preservation of the natural world.
Burges has no excuse for being ignorant of Divine agency as examples abound in the Bible. For example, in Ex 7:4-5, God states:
When Pharaoh does not listen to you, then I will lay My hand on Egypt and bring out My hosts, My people the sons of Israel, from the land of Egypt by great judgments. "The Egyptians shall know that I am the LORD, when I stretch out My hand on Egypt and bring out the sons of Israel from their midst.”
In fact, God explicitly states in verses 17-18 that he would strike the water with the staff in his hand in order to turn it to blood:
"Thus says the LORD, “By this you shall know that I am the LORD: behold, I will strike the water that is in the Nile with the staff that is in my hand, and it will be turned to blood. The fish that are in the Nile will die, and the Nile will become foul, and the Egyptians will find difficulty in drinking water from the Nile.”
God however did not literally strike the Nile, but employed secondary methods (Aaron) to achieve his aims. Likewise, God did not literally stretch out his hand to smite Egypt, but rather employed secondary methods - the plagues - to achieve these ends.
Conclusion
Claims that evolution was promoted to eliminate the need for God are undermined by the fact that most of the early supporters of evolution were theologically conservative Christians who saw it as the mechanism employed by God to create. The idea of divine agency, where secondary causes are used by God to effect his will has ample Biblical support, and shows that there is no theological barrier for God to employ natural law to create.
Conclusion
Claims that evolution was promoted to eliminate the need for God are undermined by the fact that most of the early supporters of evolution were theologically conservative Christians who saw it as the mechanism employed by God to create. The idea of divine agency, where secondary causes are used by God to effect his will has ample Biblical support, and shows that there is no theological barrier for God to employ natural law to create.
