i love evolution.
i really mean it.
i love it.
at first, it was this incredibly intimidating idea...
and it was posited to me early
(by the christian church or by some book i read or who knows,
it doesn't really matter)
that there was a great either/or.
either creation or evolution.
either there is a good and loving God,
or else single-celled organisms formed in the ocean
from smaller functional mechanisms,
and over hundreds of millions of years,
cells started interacting in bigger functional units,
and eventually trilobites morphed into sponges which
morphed into anemones and so on.
i heard a recent conversation between a renowned
marine biologist and a woman who asked:
"how do you reply to the controversy of evolution in today's society?"
the biologists' response: "madame, there is no controversy."
i don't argue with mathematicians about the riemann hypothesis,
factorials or the gaussian distribution
because i'm not a mathematician,
and i sound really dumb when i argue about things i don't understand.
and i have come to find it rather silly that non-scientists
enter the conversation about whether or not evolution takes place,
when to the (respectable) scientific world it is so clear that it does.
mark hobbs asked last weekend:
"have you ever met a scientist who didn't believe in evolution?"
my reply: "not a good one."
that to say, there is quite incontrovertible evidence
that speciation takes place,
and has been taking place for eons.
so then awhile ago i found myself in that uncomfortable posture
of not being willing to give up the evidence
of evolution in front of me
and not willing to give up this central paradigm of nature:
"that through Christ all things were made;
without him nothingwas made that has been made."
and in wrestling through that conflict i cameto two realizations:
1) that creation and evolution are not conflictual
2) that there is a reason i love evolution.
i don't see anything in the "big bang theory"
that suggests against a loving God revealed to us in Christ Jesus.
nor do i see anything in evolution
that suggests against a loving God revealed to us in Christ Jesus.
i suspect God saw it all before it ever happened,
and reconciled the world to him
before anything in space or time ever took place,
when at the perfect moment,
WHAM-O
the universe stuck in the world of matter.
then as billions of years unfolded,
God
with bated breath
watching molecules of cold carbon and nitrogen gases mingle
anticipated the coming of his original idea:
a bride.
so then came light as the first hydrogen ions fused,
and matter related to matter and massive things started occuring.
one rock related well to a medium-sized star,
and in their relationship,
an earth,
a garden.
the clouds formed and water rained down and something
stirred in the ocean
and something stirred on land.
and a billion years later
when the coarse ape
was rather mindlessly grinding his rod into a stone to sharpen it,
after ages of his watching matter relate to matter
plant relate to plant
and animal relate to animal,
God was overwhelmed with affection for his dream,
and climaxing from billions of years of anticipation,
he breathed something different into the ape.
and the ape took on the likeness of God:
spiritual, profoundly self-aware, capable of language
and above all else,
capable of love.
these two features guided all things,
from the first atom
to the first adam
and guide us today:
relationship and mutability.
and when i think of evolution,
i think of God.
and when i hear again
that a new species has been discovered in thewater below the galapogos,
and i really ponder it,
i don't see a cold, lifeless work of physics,
but my faith instructs me
how the Lord has longed for his church,
his bride,
from eons past,
and how he has gave it all for her.
there is this dynamic i find in every physical thing,
and i suspect it may be present even in great heavenly things:
evolution.
babies grow from two cells that fuse into a zygote.
then as weeks turn into months,
they develop cognition and emotion.
they evolve from one zygote
into a complex thinking adult homo sapien.
and every system, organic and inorganic
has these features:
relating to all the things in it's setting
(nothing is an island in nothingness)
and change
(nothing can interact with its setting and not change).
it is in the blueprint of all that exists:
relating and changing.
developing. emerging. evolving.
i think it is not that God sits at the helm
and speciates;
it's not that he architects changes in dna
so to generate survival advantage in an organism;
instead,
we speciate because we are made by God,
we cannot avoid speciation,
because his nature is in all that exists.
we live as a reflection of the greatness of the living God.
and if there is anything that i want to understand,
i mean really grasp about it all, it is this:
that Christ is the image of the invisible God,
that he is the firstborn over all creation.
and that by him all things were created:
things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible,
whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities;
all things created by him and for him.
that he is before all things,and that in him all things hold together.
and that he is the head of the body,
the church;
that he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead,
so that in everything he might have the supremacy.
that God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him,
and through him to reconcile to himself all things,
whether things on earth or things in heaven,
by making peace through his blood shed on the cross.
and to understand the word of God in its fullness --
the mystery that has been kept hidden
for ages and generations,
but is now disclosed to the saints --
which is Christ in us, the hope of glory.
Thursday, May 24, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)

19 comments:
Jackson - this is incredible. Today I took a few minutes at lunch to read a bit from McLaren's "The Story We Find Ourselves In". I just started reading it recently, so we are at the beginning of the story. So many similarities between your post and the first few chapters of his book.
This is THE story. And we (humanity) are, in one sense, such a small part, and yet also in some ways the main event.
We christians have traded in this amazing story for one so small in comparison, silly and indefensible. All because we insist on reading Genesis as an encyclopedia rather than as an epic poem - the grandest and most beautiful truth (yes truth!) ever written. But it isn't a chronology of facts. Why do we demand that of God? He hasn't given us a textbook describing exactly how he created the world - only the creation itself to teach us.
Thank god for evolution. What hope would we have if God hadn't invented change?
Great writing!
I had to put down Lee Strobel's "The Case for Creation" because, while fascinating, it was too complicated for my pea-brain ;). My dad taught classes on evolution and evidences for years...I, unfortunately, didn't inherit his scientific brain :)
Interestingly, George MacDonald "suggests" that he thinks very similarly in at least one of his writings.
While I certainly believe in evolution (we see it everywhere), I tend to take the Genesis passage literally when it comes to the creation of man.
I think the thing that separates us from animals is the we have a spirit and animals do not (not to be confused with soul).
My question is: if God created man through evolution, at what point did He give man a spirit?
Just thinking out loud...I enjoyed your post.
I really enjoyed this, too (although I must confess to skimming in parts, as the terminology got to be too much for my brain).
I, like Rishi, tend more toward the literal interpretation of the creation story in Genesis, which--pardon, Mark--I find overwhelming and grand. Indefensible doesn't bother me so much. There are lots of things in the Bible that I take literally that aren't scientifically defensible. (Side note: I HATE it when "Christian authorities" use the Bible to argue with scientists. They say that the Bible says this, and so everyone should believe it. Jerry Falwell essentially told Bill Nye the Science Guy that he was a fool--I still cringe.)
Regardless, I remember very specifically times in my life when Christians brought up the idea that these ideas (God and evolution, etc.) are not necessarily incompatible. I had a geology teacher in college who put it well, and what she said encapsulates my thoughts on the subject, and I think also essentially agrees with what Jackson said.
She said that she believed that God could have made the world through big bang, evolution, and taken millions (billions?) of years. She said she also believed that he could have done it in six days just by his voice (his Word, if you will). But, ultimately, she believed He did it--He was the Author of it all. Honestly, I become less and less concerned about the details of it all in light of that truth.
And I love that, despite our views on the details, we can still be one bride because of the truth of Jesus.
Just to clarify - I don't think the story told in Genesis is small or silly or indefinsible. Quite the opposite actually. I agree Amy that it is grand and overwhelming. It is the interpretation of that story that insists that the world is 6,000 years old - and the idea that if you don't believe that, then you don't believe in the bible - that I take issue with.
Really enjoyed the post. As a former science teacher working at a Christian school, I encountered so many hard-core creationists--even my textbooks taught creationism. I refused to teach that chapter. It was too volatile an issue, and I could just imagine the parents lining up in the principal's office to complain. I struggled some with understanding all the in's and out in the expert literature. I finally decided that I probably would never change someone's mind even if I could argue it well. And I rested in knowing the truth was not going to determine my salvation or anyone else's though some may take exception to that. God can do things in any number of ways. He can be master of evolution or even a Big Bang(though I still have trouble digesting that one)just as certainly as a 6-day creation. I am intrigued by the debate, but I won't lose sleep in trying to figure out every detail. Thanks for a thought-provoking discussion.
Mark -- Ah. Yes, I agree with you there. Thanks for the clarification.
To add to the silliness of that, I remember being taught in Sunday School once that Jesus coming back was going to line up with creationism in that the "millenium" would coincide with the "seventh day" of rest, ergo jesus would come back in the year 2000 (or something like that) because that would mark the 7,000th year of earth's existence. And this all somehow related to the passage that says a day is like a thousand years, etc. Sigh.
I think that you have somehow spoken what i believe in my gut to be true but never had the stones to admit. I recently saw a news report telling of a museum in florida that is designed to convince people that creationism in all of its literal glory is true beyond all that makes sense and even beyond all that glorifies our Lord while making sense at the same time. When a reporter asked the man responsible for this museum what he thought about the idea of children going to school already having closed their minds to the ins and outs of science. Children who disrespect their teachers by proclaiming that they know better because of some museum in florida, the man replied "amen". I think i should choke him
If we throw out a literal interpretation of Gen 1-2, should we also just throw out the idea of a literal resurrection?
How can you just pick and choose?
Hey! You all bless me. Jackson, thank you for the Christ of Colossians 1…I believe the truth expressed there is at the core of good theology…it has often helped me keep my thinking straight, at least straighter than it would be otherwise!
Mark, I agree, “in some ways [we are] the main event.” …though, maybe this is an understatement. The billions of galaxies, and all that Jackson wrote about, came first. Then, the very last thing, the bride-- from Adam and for Adam…and the Book ends with the Last Adam married to His Bride. The entire creation is looking to what God is doing with us (Rom 8).
Amy, I’ve often thought along the lines of your geology teacher. And not just because I believe God is big and powerful. But from a scientific point of view. Rom Chp 5 and 8 seem to indicate that with “the fall” there was a change in the laws of physics. If so, then the laws by which we measure time can’t be used to measure the time of the events before the fall. In other words, the only measuring stick we have for time is probably not calibrated properly for measuring the events of the past physics realm.
Anonymous, I think I understand your concern, and the churning in the gut that goes with it. I appreciate that Jackson mentioned that the Living God breathed into this creature He’d formed out of the elements of the earth and that the creature took on the likeness of God. He seems to be saying that he believes it literally happened. Couldn’t that same Breath of God (that Jackson has chosen to blieve in) have raised Jesus from the dead, literally?
I'm just a caveman sports fan. However, I'm a great big fan of Greg Easterbrook's NFL blog, Tuesday Morning Quarterback (TMQ)
http://nfl.com/nflnetwork/story/6908185
here's what he says evolution; in the article he discusses a psychic that appeared on Larry King Live and who was paid by some NFL teams. She tried to explain the walk-to-the-light and the afterlife on that show, and TMQ was making fun of her. I kept this as a favorite for awhile:
"TMQ is a churchgoer who believes there are higher powers and a life to come, but since the Bible tells us nothing about what the afterlife may be like, I don't pretend to know details. I can note, however, that the dying in many places having similar mental experiences is not "impossible" absent the supernatural. There may be a perfectly natural reason why people facing mortality see hallways of peace or wisdom: because that is what culture conditions people to expect on death. (Let's hope it's right!) As for the bright lights the dying sometimes report experiencing, this article by Brendan Koerner explains mundane physical theories. Among them are that brain anoxia, or oxygen depravation, causes the optic nerves to sense white; and that at death the body releases all stored endorphins (no need to keep saving them) to stop mortal agony and create a sense of peace, making dying less traumatic.
The latter biological possibility is actually one of the reasons TMQ believes that human beings were made by a God who loves us. Why would natural selection have cared about reducing a person's trauma at death? All natural selection cares about is fitness in passing down genes; if after replicating its DNA an organism dies in pain or panic, what's that to evolution? In Darwinian terms, there would be no "selection pressure" favoring the peaceful death over the horrible death. Yet there appear to be biological mechanisms that help most people die peacefully. Why are such mechanisms in our physiologies? Maybe because somebody loves us."
While considering this, here are some more points to ponder:
Doesn't any story involving "the fruit of the tree of knowledge" shown to man by a serpent make you think that it just MIGHT be allegorical?
Yes, I think there's a missing link...
almost every world culture has a story about the great flood, or Atlantis type situation. Coincidentally, man curiously (and unlike any other primate) has nostrils that point downward and a bridged nose, a reflex to hold its breath when submerged under water, requires far more fluid intake to remain hydrated, a noticeable lack of body-hair, a method of swimming unique in the animal world, an affinity for beaches, swimming pools etc...
I think science doesn't yet know all there is to know about human evolution, but that there is a water-based explanation that can overcome many evolutionists' "proofs" that man did not evolve but was created in God's image.
That having been said, it still doesn't change the whether I believe that Jesus was the son of God or whether he died for man's sins. There's far more archaeological and historical proof for that than many of the historical truths we take for granted- the story of Alexander the Great is based on a single writing 500 years after the fact vs. multiple accounts within the generation of the acts of Jesus of Nazareth.
Glad to see you post, Jackson.
I imagine us sitting at the bar of your kitchen and me asking you a question, “Jackson, may I ask you a difficult question?” I imagine you nodding, “yes.” Here it is: Do you really mean the last sentence and following where you begin with,
“and if there is anything that i want to understand,i mean really grasp about it all, it is this:
that Christ is the image of the invisible God,
that he is the firstborn over all creation.
and that by him all things were created…” and ends with ,”...Christ in us, the hope of glory”?
One thing I know about science is that it is always wrong. And in our enlightened world for us to think that we have some how overcome our flaws is to hugely underestimate the depravity of man.
Whoo-hoo! That was awesome. I could almost see God with wide eyes, watching The Creation unfold like a symphony, conducting the most beautiful and finely tuned orchestra of the ages, building the choruses, and resolving the dissonance and creating it at the same time. It's beautiful, God's thrilled, and so am I!
Jackson, it's Denise. Matt, the kids and I miss you and your family. Will you please update your blog and include some more sweet pictures of your wife, your baby girl, your house, heck, even you?? We do miss you terribly. Love, Denise
I'm not really being critical here, but evolution isn't as great as you think. Natural selection is the flawed mechanism by which billions of species have ceased to exist. In essence, evolution is more of a failure at life than success. 99.9% of all species that have ever lived on earth are now extinct.
AMEN!
Post a Comment