Evolutionary theory probably has as many different varieties as Heinz has products! Today the two major types of evolutionary thought are "phyletic gradualism'' and "punctuated equilibrium. '' The basic difference is whether evolution has occurred slowly, as in the former, or rapidly, as in the latter. While some creationists feel that punctuated equilibrium is one step closer to creationism because of its emphasis on sudden, dramatic changes in the history of life, nonetheless it requires a history of some three billion years and a process of chance to bring life from a simple one-celled stage to its present multicellular complexity.
In dealing with evolution's compatibility with Christianity, we will first summarize evolution according to its four major tenets as explained in Dar win's Origin of Species.
1. Descent with modification. All living organisms, whether plant or animal, reproduce new generations that are different from their parent generations. No two living things are exactly identical, just as no two snowflakes are exactly alike.
2. Overproduction. Most living organ isms reproduce far more offspring than will grow to maturity. For example, only a small fraction of the acorns produced by an oak tree will ever sprout into oak seedlings, and only a fraction of these seedlings will ever reach a mature, acorn-bearing stage.
3. Struggle for existence. The whole world of nature is characterized as a continual battle for survival. Organisms are competing with one another for the same space and the same food supplies. Since the food supplies are finite, some organisms will die of malnourishment, and others will themselves become food for hungry organisms.
4. Survival of the fittest. Since living things produce more offspring than will ever reach maturity and since there is a constant struggle for existence, it follows that those organisms which are better adapted to their environment and its pressures will survive. The competitive edge is given to those which have inherited such variation as to give them an advantage in this fierce struggle.
All four of these tenets were combined by Charles Darwin—the first scientist to do so—into the one package that he called "natural selection." (Thus he titled his book On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection.) Just as agriculturists can increase the survivability of their livestock by artificial breeding, or selection, so nature improves its plant and animal species constantly through a process of natural selection.
Is natural selection compatible with Christianity? The answer is both Yes and No. We find no theological difficulty with the first two tenets of natural selection: descent with modification and overproduction. These self-evident facts of the natural world are in harmony with principles inscribed on the fabric of nature by the Creator Himself. We do find problems with the last two tenets. We cannot deny that there is a struggle for existence, but Darwin failed to acknowledge the root cause of this struggle—the presence of sin and evil in the world. He failed to realize that this struggle is not natural but unnatural (Gen. 3:14-19; Rom. ,8:20-22); as the parable puts it, "An enemy hath done this" (Matt. 13:28).Evolution involves a principle of competition in the struggle for existence, whereas Christianity is based upon the principle of love—in its truest form, self-sacrifice—which entails sharing with one's neighbors, and even with one's enemies, the elements necessary for survival (John 15:13; Acts 20:35; Rom. 12:20). Self-preservation is not intrinsically wrong, but when it is not accompanied by self-sacrifice it becomes an evil no different from that which called for the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (Eze. 16:49).
Likewise, the concept of "the survival of the fittest" may at first appear to be an innocuous description of everyday occurrences, but it certainly contradicts the Biblical descriptions of the principles upon which Christianity is based. Divine concern for and intervention on behalf of the handicapped upsets what appears to be the natural order. One's inherent fitness does not determine one's survivability; one's relationship to God does (see Matt. 5:3; Luke 4:18; 14:21; 1 Cor. 1:26-31; 2 Cor. 12:10).
But evolution not only touches upon the general principles underlying Christianity; it also has implications, directly or indirectly, for all the Christian doctrines. We turn now to consider its bearing on specific doctrines.
The nature of man
Genesis 1 and 2 link man's creation with the creation of the world and particularly with the animals, and yet these accounts also make a very definite separation. The statement that man was created in the image of God highlights this separation. Creation in the image of God distinguishes man from the animals, which otherwise might be thought of in very similar terms, and tells something of the Biblical concept of the nature of man. The Bible depicts man as created with a degree of intelligence and a spiritual nature that made possible a high level of communication with God. He also had free moral agency, a conscience, and accountability for his actions, words, and even thoughts and motives. And, importantly, the Creation accounts imply that man as originally created was immortal, although this immortality was conditional. Death was not part of the world scheme but came as a result of man's fall (Gen. 2:16, 17; 3:1-4, 22).
But if man originated from an even relatively continuous stream of evolutionary development, the clear separation from the higher animals we have noted above is destroyed. At what point in man's evolution would he have taken on the image of God? When would he have reached a level at which he could communicate with God, and, more importantly, when would morality have become important? When would he have had a conscience and accountability? At what point would God have indicated or decided that all life forms in man's family tree up to that point would not be eligible for eternal life, and all life forms after it would be—or will all life forms be resurrected to eternal life?
Some have tried to solve this kind of problem by postulating that at some point in man's evolution he was given an eternal soul, and that with this came his spiritual nature and potentialities. But the Scriptures portray man as a holistic being. The spiritual side of his nature has not been "laid on" him but is an integral part of his being. (See for example, Robert M, Johnston, "After Death: Resurrection or Immortality?" MINISTRY, September, 1983.) The dualistic under standing of man comes from the same source—ancient Greek thought—in which the concept of evolutionary development first appeared.
Evolution pictures successful life forms as relatively complete beings that function adequately in their environment. And man would be classed as one of these successful life forms. But the Biblical portrayal of man certainly varies greatly from this. Because he has spiritual components in his makeup, and because of the effect of the Fall and his own personal sins on this aspect of his nature, he cannot fairly be said to be a whole being or to be functioning adequately. Paul paints a pessimistic portrait of the human race apart from God (for example, Romans 1,2) and even goes so far as to say that men apart from Christ are dead (Eph. 2:1, 5; Col. 2:13). Hardly an indication that they are functioning adequately! There is a basic and very real disjunction between evolutionary and Biblical thought here.
The Creation accounts also stress man's dominion over and stewardship of the earth and all of the life upon it. ("Dominion over" does not necessarily imply "exploitation of." Man's rule was to be responsible; he was to "keep" the earth [Gen. 2:15], wording which has nuances of preservation.) Evolution, on the other hand, would imply that man is a product of and part of the stream of nature—and subordinate to it.
The doctrines of sin and of salvation
Acceptance of anything less than a direct and personal creation by God weakens the doctrines of sin and salvation. "Sin" has many nuances in the Scriptures, such as lawlessness, a falling short, missing the mark, or transgression. But ultimately, all sin is rebel lion against the Creator. The Bible points to His creatorship as that which gives Him authority, the right to expect obedience from His creatures. (See for example, Ps. 96:1-6; Rev. 14:7. This latter, and other Biblical passages, connects His creatorship not only with His authority and worthiness of worship but also with the ideas that He is the Source of salvation and that there will be a future judgment.) And it is because He was a personal Creator who communed directly with the first humans that their sin was so heinous.
Probably the most difficult problem for those attempting to reconcile Christianity and evolution lies in the need to explain how sin arose. Acceptance of a literal creation allows for a relatively simple explanation of man's involvement in sin. God created man in His own image—perfect and with the freedom to choose. When faced with a choice to take God at His word, to accept His authority, or to mistrust God's good intentions and to choose his own way, man- did the latter. Evolutionary schemes for man's development destroy this simple—and Biblical—explanation, and offer in its place no satisfactory suggestion as to how man fell. If man's development has been along an evolutionary continuum from morally unaccountable animal ancestors to his present state, at what juncture did he become accountable? When was there a fall from grace? And how did this occur? Adding to the difficulty, the Bible pictures death as the product of sin. One man's disobedience brought it upon all (Rom. 5:12, 19-21). But the evolutionary scheme depends upon a continuous stream of deaths from the time the first living organism came into existence. Death then becomes part of the screening process that results in the development of new life forms and growth in complexity. Rather than being the result of sin—a negative quantity—it serves as part of the creation process. Death does not follow from man's sin but precedes his existence by millions of years.
Whether one accepts Creation or evolution affects one's understanding of salvation also. In an indirect manner, it touches upon the doctrine of salvation in that one's concept of sin and its results (particularly death) affect one's concept of salvation. If death is not the result of sin but rather a natural part of the process by which God creates, then salvation from sin and its results does not necessarily mean salvation from death. But the Bible clearly teaches that salvation includes the end of death. In fact, "the last enemy that shall be destroyed is death" (1 Cor. 15:26; cf. Rev. 20:14).
The Biblical concept of salvation is more compatible with a direct interventionism than some kind of divinely guided uniformitarianism. The Scriptures depict salvation as a re-creation (see 2 Cor. 5:17; Isa. 44:21-28; 65:17- 25; Ps. 51:10), a supernatural operation which would require the same creative energy which originally brought forth life.
And in the Bible ultimate salvation does not proceed in uniformitarian terms. The Scriptures do not teach that final salvation consists in man—or some kind of immaterial soul—being taken to heaven at his death (again, see Johnston's article referred to above), allowing for a continuing evolution on the earth. Rather, the Biblical picture is of a complete destruction of this-earth and a re-creation, which is related to the original creation. Man then lives in the ideal, "restored to original condition" earth (see Rev. 21:1-5; Isa. 65:17-25; 66:22; Rom. 8:18-23; 2 Peter 3:7-13). The pattern is not of an ongoing world with the righteous individually taken off to Paradise. Rather it is one of Paradise created, lost, and finally restored through God's gracious and omnipotent activity.
Evolution and the Sabbath
Marriage and the Sabbath are the two institutions which man carried with him when he sorrowfully left the perfection of Paradise and entered a world plagued by sin on every hand. The first was designed as a protection against the sins of the flesh, and the second as a protection against the sins of the spirit. Both were originated at the beginning of human history (Gen. 1, 2). The theory of evolution definitely has an impact upon these institutions and, in our opinion, has undermined their foundations. When society considers man to be merely a sophisticated animal with a simian ancestry, then it devalues the marriage institution.
Evolution affects the Biblical portrayal of the Sabbath in much the same way. God intended the Sabbath to serve as a memorial engraved in time, commemorating the creation of the world (Ex. 31:17). But if the theory of evolution is considered to be an accurate account of origins, it becomes instead an epitaph commemorating the entombment of millions of creatures that were caught up in the "struggle for existence" and have become the spent byproducts of natural selection- The Sabbath then would commemorate a process (chance) rather than a person (the Lord God).
What is the Sabbath? We have already said that it is a memorial of God's creative activity at the beginning of the world (Ex. 31:17; 20:11), but it is also a memorial of God's present power to re-create within the human life the image of God that was defaced and fractured by sin (Eze. 20:12; 2 Cor. 5:17; 3:18). Weekly it reminds man of his creatureliness and of God's creatorship. Scripture gives no hint of man's descent from a prehuman hominoid or anthropoid ape. The Sabbath commemorates the fact that man was made in the image and likeness of his Creator (Gen. 1:26), and that he was made from dust and not from preexisting life (Gen. 2:7).
The matter of man's ancestry, in turn, has important implications for the Sabbath. Scripture asserts that God "hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth" (Acts 17:26), thus removing any racial and social distinctions. The Sabbath, which is the day when people are gathered into the "house of prayer for all people" (Isa. 56:7), is a foretaste of that millennial Sabbath when there will be no class distinctions or social barriers between worshipers. "And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall flesh come to worship before me, saith the Lord" (Isa. 66:23). This spirit of joyous equality between all peoples does not come through a gradual evolutionary process but becomes possible through a miraculous creative act on God's part (verse 22).
The Sabbath memorializes a literal Creation week. (That the Bible considers the days of the creation week to be literal is indicated by its use of ordinal numbers with the Hebrew word for day, yom, in Genesis 1. Whenever this word is preceded by an ordinal number in the Old Testament, it refers to a twenty-four-hour period. See, for example, Numbers 7.) The Sabbath reminds us of our creatureliness, as products of a literal creation at the hand of God, and that our lives are measured by time, in contrast to God's timelessness. Both of these facts of our existence serve to turn us to God. But evolution challenges both a clear belief in our creatureliness and the Sabbath. In doing so, it weakens modern man's realization of his need for God.
Evolution and eschatology
Parallel to the trend of making the seven days of Creation vague and indefinite is a trend that renders the events at the end of the world vague and indefinite. Just as most scholars treat the opening chapters of Genesis as mythological, many scholars treat the book of Revelation as totally symbolic without any fulfillment within historical events. It is possible that the revolution in geological thinking in the past two hundred years has had an impact here. Modern geology is said by some to have begun when James Hutton introduced uniformitarianism to the Royal Society in 1785. He ended his speech to that group with these famous words: "The result, therefore, of our inquiry is that we see no vestige of a beginning, no prospect of an end." Granted, Hutton was not denying that the universe, or our own cosmos, must have had a beginning and will have an end, but the principle he introduced has had the effect of exploding the Biblical concept of a definite beginning and end.
Basically there are two possibilities as to how the end of all things can take place: (1) it could be sudden, catastrophic, and supernatural; or (2) it could be a gradual transition through natural events into a spiritual kingdom. Some of Jesus' sayings appear to support one scenario and some the other. The gradualistic, nearly imperceptible entry of the kingdom is described in these words: "The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you" (Luke 17:20, 21). But one has only to read a few verses further to find the opposite description: "For as the lightning, that lighteneth out of the one part under heaven, shineth unto the other part under heaven; so shall also the Son of man be in his day" (verse 24). The gradualistic view of the kingdom's entry is best applied to the work of the gospel within human hearts; thus Christ had already established the kingdom in His day. But the future establishment of the kingdom in all its glory is to be a worldwide, catastrophic event accompanied by fire that removes all traces of sin and serves as a prelude to a new act of creation by the divine Creator (see Matt. 24:35-39; 2 Thess. 1:7-10; 2 Peter 3:7-10; Rev. 6:12-17; 21:1-8).
Generally the way we interpret the opening chapters of Genesis will be the way in which we interpret the book of Revelation. The two books are linked together by a golden thread, and it is not without significance that the Lord describes Himself as "Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending" (Rev. 1:8). If we believe that the earth and all life therein came into existence through a very slow, gradualistic process called evolution, then we are likely to reject any view suggesting a sudden, catastrophic end of the world and a miraculous beginning of a new world. But the whole emphasis of the eschatological portions of the New Testament is upon the suddenness of the Second Advent, and the book of Revelation ends on that note: "Behold, I come quickly" (chap. 22:12). The course of human history is brought to a close by supernatural intervention. And if it is true that the end will take place with suddenness and with supernatural activity, then we are fully justified in believing that life originated in just as abrupt and supernatural a manner. The basis for believing that Christ can radically transform this sin-scarred planet and remove all traces of evil is that He is both Redeemer and Creator. "Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created" (chap. 4:11).
