Saving Darwin 2

Disappointing: That’s one way to describe Giberson’s book, Saving Darwin: How to be a Christian and Believe in Evolution. Another way to describe it (from a different angle) could be found in the word interesting or the phrase worthy to have as a part of one’s library.

Perhaps if the title of his book was something to the effect of: Saving Darwin: A 20th Century Historical Analysis of the debate between Creationists and Evolutions, I would give this book two thumbs way up (well maybe not way up). But because the subtitle makes the claim to be able to offer a solution to the apparent antithesis of Christianity and Evolution, and because it fails at nearly every point to even address this (supposed) topic - and worse, it never once addresses the “How” question of the subtitle - I walked away very disappointed.

The Introduction and final chapter are the only two places were Giberson directly addresses the idea of a Christian believing evolutionist (citing himself as an example), and in neither of those chapters (nor anywhere else in the book to my dismay) does he even come close to answering the question of “how” (compatible theologically?). Throughout the book he seems to think that statements such as “well everybody is doing it” (remember grade school?) should be authority enough to persuade people to accept his position. He often makes statements such as the scientific community all agree such and such; most theologians believe such and such, or throughout church history such and such wasn’t an issue (this last point I’ll discuss further momentarily). My mom taught me that if everyone else jumped off the bridge does that mean that I should to? Good point mom!

The closest he gets to offering a solution to the problem comes out like this; “Speculations such as these are above my pay grade, of course, and best left to theologians” (his speculations we’ll get to momentarily). It seemed to me as though his attitude was something to the effect of a shrugging of the shoulders with a nonchalant; “Evolution is fact! Christianity is true. There is the mess and it’s for the theologian to clean it up!”

Or put another way: “Here’s the antithesis, I don’t care about reason (logic or sense); you clean it up!” (he actually says "scientists don't care about reason", that worries me.

So what kind of speculations was he referring to? Well, he suggests that if the bible writers (i.e. Paul, Luke, Isaiah, Ezra et cetera) and the early church Fathers knew about evolution as we do, they certainly would have included the rest of the animal kingdom in the redemption plan; he goes on to say, “Still, I find no compelling reason to think that the central message of Christianity is incompatible with humanity’s kinship with the rest of the animal world”. At this point I reached for the closest theological book on my shelf that might shine some light on this subject, Roger Olson’s Mosaic of Christian Beliefs, and here’s what I get: “Whether all evolutionary explanations of biological development of species are naturalistic is a discussion that lies beyond the scope of this book”, and “Whether [evolution] should be added to the list [of alternative Christian consensus of creation] is still a matter of disagreement and sometimes heated debate” (pages 164, 163 respectively). So I suppose I’m left still waiting for either a scientist or a theologian (or, ideally, both) to show how Evolution and Christianity are compatible.

But lets examine how they are incompatible, and why (contra to Gibersons apparent naivety, which probably explains why he never offers a “how”) it really, really matters! The key doctrines of Redemption, the very purpose for the Son coming in the flesh, the very purpose for the cross and resurrection hangs in the balance!

Evolutions Acid

Why make an issue of Evolution at all, asks Giberson, as he, time and again, cites examples of individuals who have made peace with both God and Evolution and are totally disinterested in the subject (though ironically never offering a “how”). “I hasten to point out,” says he, “[creation] is a secondary doctrine for Christians” (p.10). “Christianity”, he goes on to say, “Is primarily about Christ… And [this belief is] not threatened by Darwin’s dangerous idea” (p.11). There are only two secondary (thus insignificant) doctrines of Christianity that the acid of evolution dissolves:

What of the Fall?

“Evolution does, however, pose two challenges to secondary Christian beliefs: the fall of humankind, and the uniqueness of humankind” he says (p.11). He goes on to show - rightly - how belief in Evolution constitutes a rejection of the doctrine of the “fall” of creation into sin, (thus denying the primary [in relation to Christ] Christian doctrine of Original Sin and/or the Sin Nature, and the need for Redemption - i.e. affecting the doctrines revolving around Christ - herein lies my problem with Giberson’s proposal. He seems to be oblivious to this crucial connection). He claims to offer, however, an alternative to the doctrine of the fall, placing this idea in the constructs of evolution.

Darwin’s book On The Origin of Species: By Means of Natural Selection stands on the hypothesis of Natural Selection and Survival of the Fittest. The Christian doctrine of the Fall stands on the hypothesis of “human sinfulness” he says (not that we have a sin nature, but that we sin says Giberson), and so Giberson asks, “what does it mean to be sinful?” he answers his rhetorical question: “When the rubber hits the road, sinfulness is mainly selfishness” (p.12). So what is the difference between survival of the fittest and selfishness? Nothing, for only the selfish survive, the unselfish fail to survive because they are not willing to do what it takes to survive. Therefore, all are alive, all are selfish: all are sinful.

Premises 1: The selfish survive
Premises 2: Selfishness and sinfulness are synonymous
Conclusion: All who survive are sinful

Giberson says later that God could not have created mankind because if he did, he did a bad job (citing the poor constructs of knee and hip joints). In his mind, Giberson is actually protecting God (if he exists) by removing a bad design from God’s hands. For this reason (among others) he rejects God as creator. Then to contradict himself, he says in another spot: “[evolution] rules out certain mechanisms that God might have used to create the world, but others remain”. So on the one hand God is not the creator, on another hand he is; which is it I wonder? Or maybe (in wild and untamed speculation) God created only part of the universe, “God apparently did not create the entire universe and everything in it” he also says (p.10 emphasis added). Which part did God create I wonder?

And so God did, or did not, or maybe only partly did - or maybe something else - I’m dizzy - create the universe. One thing we can say for sure (or rather… maybe), is that sin did not result from a fall from a good creation, but through the process of evolution and natural selection (i.e. there was never a good creation, and never a good creator God. Now imagine going to your bible and removing every hint, every explicit and implicit reference to God being the good creator God… how much of your bible do you think would remain? Don’t tell me this idea of Evolution does not seriously affect the Christian religion!)

What of the Uniqueness of Mankind?


Giberson says - rightly - “Once we accept the full evolutionary picture of human origins, we face the problem of human uniqueness.” He explains how modern science has shown that everything of humans - “intelligence, upright posture, moral sense, opposable thumbs, language capacity” - have evolved slowly over time and concludes - rightly - “This provocatively suggests that animals, especially the higher primates, ought to possess an identifiable moral sense that is only quantitatively different from that of humans.”

To site an example, Giberson tells of one particular primate who showed an uncanny resemblance to human compassion by saving and watching over (until it healed) a little birdie, and then concludes “This story is close enough to that of the Good Samaritan to make it hard to treat morality as a purely human attribute” (p.14). So now it’s not about being “dead in your trespasses and sin” and finding salvation in the work of Christ; oh no… now it is simply about being morally good, doing the right thing. The cross of Jesus had no real significance except to show us an example of how not to be “selfish” (i.e. sinful - remember above). Surrrre, this doctrine does not affect Christianity at all, especially not the primary doctrines revolving around Christ; riiiight.

So how, exactly, should we understand the non-exclusivity of the human race (no longer particularly made in the image of God) in light of the scriptures; here's what Giberson says: “Does the ‘acid’ of our evolutionary kinship with the primates” he asks “dissolve anything of importance to Christian theology? I am not convinced that it does” he said…

Wait for it…


wait…


for…


it…


Ah, yet again there is no further explanation; there is no “how”. In the words of my beautiful wife, “so just because he says it, it will be”, again failing to offer up a “how” (well, he does suggest that the bible writers wrote in ignorance of the facts and therefore would not have made the human race exclusively important if they knew, so evidently they weren’t even inspired - man oh man, why don’t we just join the Jesus Seminar and be done with it, that’s where this is going).


Other Arguments:


Later on he says that Christians have never made a big issue of the age of the earth, so why are we so adamant today?

The argument that Christians have never made an “issue” over the age of the earth is absurd! He is literally bordering on ludicrous at this point (I almost can’t believe he teaches at a Christian College with logic like this). Let me explain.

No issue was made because all agreed the earth to be relatively young; in other words, the age of the earth was a non-issue prior to the Enlightenment! It’s like today; no one is making an issue over whether the sun is “hot” or whether the earth is “round” or whether gravity exists - because all agree.

But if a respected scientist where to declare that the sun is not hot, but actually cold, then the temperature of the sun would become an issue. The issue would not be created by those who believe the sun to be hot then, but the issue would be created by those who believe the sun to be cold; the first would simply be responding to the latter.

In the same way, the issue of the age of the earth - or more prominently, whether or not God created the earth, which is the real issue - was not created by the Creationist or Intelligent Design(er), but rather by the evolutionist - of whom the former where simply responding to the latter.

Why can the Gap Theorists, the Day-Age Theorists, and the Creation Scientist all lock arms against the Evolutionist? Because the age of the earth is not the issue, but rather, God as Creator is! (Not to mention the “fall-out” of rejecting the exclusiveness of the human race and a Fall from a good creation.)

And the question of whether or not Christians throughout the ages unanimously agreed on this point is beyond doubt (despite the claims of Giberson). The oldest creed in Christendom, one adhered to by all branches of Christianity declares this as the first and foundational point for all other creedal points: “I believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of Heaven and Earth” (the Apostles Creed).

To know that the early Fathers (by and large) viewed the Hebrew creation account as actual (though sometimes layers thick with meaning like in the case with Theophilus or Oregin) is sure, I recommend in particular a book by Peter C. Bouteneff, Beginnings: Ancient Christian Readings of the Biblical Creation Narratives ©2008. Any other book on the history of Christian thought will also reveal this fact.

There is more at stake here then meets the eye - and much more then Giberson realizes as he casually sweeps aside two key, historical and most prominent doctrines of the Christian faith, the Fall of mankind (resulting in the need for redemption and thus inseparately connected to the doctrine of the Atonement and purpose of Christ) and the exclusiveness of the Human Race (as divine image bearers and covenant bearers of the Living God - see McKnight’s A Community Called Atonement, p.17 ff.) as secondary and irrelevant. To do away with this we must do away with most of the Old Testament (the Jewish idea of God is based on Yahweh being the Creator God Almighty, see Wright, Climax of the Covenant) and most of the New Testament (the Apostles Creed reflects the importance of God the Creator in the Christian faith not to mention the very words of Jesus and Paul addressing the reality of the Creation and consequently the purpose of the Cross). I think by this point we’ve already jumped in bed with the Jesus Seminar and produced a few unreasonable offspring.

This leaves us with what? Belief in the historical Jesus, yet we can’t trust the accounts handed down to us, so why then did he died? Who knows? Maybe it was simply a gigantically tragic accident. Did he rise from the dead? This is hard to deny given all the evidence, so he must not have really died, he must have survived the crucifixion, hooked up with Mary the whore, moved to France, made babies and died in peaceful bliss. Maybe Dan Brown was right after all!

Yet Giberson, despite all logical inconsistency, despite all reasonable inclinations, despite his own scientific worldviews he shrugs his shoulders and says “Jesus was God and was raised from the dead”, then chops this up to some emotional childhood attachments and the fear of spending the rest of his marriage in the outhouse.

Despite what is often preached from pulpits and soap boxes, belief in Jesus (undefined) does not “save” someone any more then belief in birds allows someone to free-fly.

The bulk of the book - the full body of literature like meat and condiments in between of two very thin buns - does not reside in the discussion of “how to be a Christian and believe in evolution” but rather is a 20th century historical account of the debate between creationist and evolutionists in the courthouses of the U.S.A. with some subtle (or not so subtle) jabs along the way. He claims, for instance, that he can trance the “roots” of the modern creationist movement to Ellen White, a Seventh-Day Adventists co-founder, longest and most revered leader and a prophetess (with visions of all sorts):

“The key ideas being promoted under the banner of “scientific creationism” originated in Ellen White’s “visions.” And the ideas might have stayed within the cloisters of the tiny Adventist sect, had not a clever amateur geologist named George McCready Price started to bang the flood-geologist drum. Even Price won but few converts, and it wasn’t until Whitcomb and Morris produced the masterful The Genesis Flood that the argument took off.” - Saving Darwin, p.142

Guilt by association - the oldest trick in the book! If he doesn't get you with his "Everybody's doing it" tactic then perhaps his "guilt by association" tactic will do it. Both are tactics of intimidation; neither worked on me.

So there you have it. Oh and one more thing; Saving Darwin could probably have been cut by about at least 1/3 its size just by cutting back some of its redundancies.

So is it possible to be a Christian and believe in evolution? It would seem so, not wanting to judge Giberson’s Christianity (having no good reason to do so). However, is it intellectually and theologically possible to be a Christian and believe in evolution, can these two opposing views be reconciled? The verdict is still out, but if Giberson’s book is any indication I’d have to say no.
Just my thoughts on Saving Darwin,

- Derek

After thought: Currently, a small army of Open Thiests are in process of writing a series of essays on “Open Theism and Evolution” which will be combined in a book sometime next year; I look forward to reading it.