Information Related to "Creation or Evolution: Did God Create Man?"
| Audio/Video |
Did God Create Man?
This issue of The Good News begins a series on creation and evolution. Did
God form the heavens and earth, or is the world and everything in it the result of
mindless, random evolutionary forces?
by Mario Seiglie
He couldn't believe his eyes. Along with
many other Catholics around the world, on Oct. 25, 1996, he read a newspaper headline
that announced, "Pope John Paul II Backs the Theory of Evolution."
For Tulio Hernandez, a 32-year old-Catholic, the news came as a shock. The newspaper
mentioned the pope had addressed the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in Rome and mused
that the theory of evolution seemed valid for the physical evolution of man and other
species through natural selection and hereditary adaptations.
"The Pope said we could have descended from the apes," said Il Giornale, a
conservative Italian newspaper. The Pope clarified that he regarded the human soul
as being God's creation and not subject to the evolutionary process. (This mixing
of evolution and God is called theistic evolution and, as we shall see, has an enormous
impact on whether people take the Bible at face value or much is considered to be
well-meaning myth.)
What was Tulio's reaction? "It left me quite confused," he remarked. "I had always
thought Adam and Eve really existed and had been created directly from the ground
by God."
What were his thoughts now about biblical teachings and the afterlife? "I don't know,"
he said, "but I'm looking seriously into reincarnation and other religions for more
answers."
How did this surprising declaration by Pope John Paul II come about? What are factors
that led to this far-reaching conclusion?
How Early Catholics Understood Genesis
Notice what Time magazine said about the pope's endorsement of evolution:
"(Pope) Pius (in 1950) was skeptical of evolution but tolerated study and discussion
of it; the statement by John Paul reflects the church's acceptance of evolution.
He did not, however, diverge at all from Pius on the question of origin of man's
soul: that comes from God, even if 'the human body is sought in living material which
existed before it.' "
The statement is unlikely to influence the curriculum of Catholic schools, where
students have studied evolution since the 1950s. Indeed, taking the Bible literally
has not been a hallmark among Catholics through much of the 20th century. Asked about
the pope's statement, Peter Stravinskas, editor of the 1991 Catholic Encyclopedia,
said: 'It's essentially what Augustine was writing. He tells us that we should not
interpret Genesis literally, and that it is poetic and theological language' "
(Time, international edition, Nov. 4, 1996, p. 59).
So, from the time of Augustine and for the next 1,300 years, covering roughly the
medieval age, the view of the Greek philosophers became the standard for explaining
creation and a flat earth in the Roman church. Further, ecclesiastical leaders adopted
the earth-centered view of the universe of Ptolemy, a Roman astronomer of the second
century. "It was . . . from the work of previous (Greek) astronomers,"
says the Encyclopedia Britannica, "that Ptolemy evolved his detailed description
of an Earth-centered (geocentric) universe, a revolutionary but erroneous idea that
governed astronomical thinking for over 1,300 years . . .
"In essence, it is a synthesis of the results obtained by Greek astronomy . . .
On the motions of the Sun, Moon, and planets, Ptolemy again extended the observations
and conclusions of Hipparchus--this time to formulate his geocentric theory, which
is popularly known as the Ptolemaic system" (15th edition, Chicago, 1975, Macropedia
Vol. 15, "Ptolemy," p. 179).
The Bible and a Round Earth
Thus it was not the biblical perspective, but the Greek view of the cosmos that
was to guide man's concept of the universe for many centuries.
Whereas the Greeks thought of the earth as stationary and imagined that everything
else circled around it, the Bible speaks of earth revolving in space. Job 38:14 compares
the earth to a seal turning and leaving its impression of day and night in the sky.
Although the Greeks thought Atlas held up first the heavens and later the earth,
and the Hindus believed the earth rested atop four gigantic elephants, the Bible
has long revealed the true explanation. We read in Job 26:7 an astonishingly modern
scientific concept, that God "hangs the earth on nothing." Science has demonstrated
that this "nothing" is the invisible force of gravity that holds the planet in its
orbit.
Over time, of course, these erroneous Greek ideas, incorporated into the Roman church,
were proven wrong. "The early Fathers thought they were defending the Bible when
they argued that the world must be flat," says British physicist Alan Hayward. "But
in fact they were only defending their own wrong interpretation of the Bible. And
in the long run they harmed their own cause, by giving people the impression that
Christianity was opposed to the scientific method of seeking knowledge" (Creation
and Evolution, Bethany House, Minneapolis, 1985, p. 80).
The voyages of various explorers, including Christopher Columbus's journey to the
New World, demonstrated that the earth was round rather than flat. A bit later Nicolas
Copernicus calculated that the earth was not the center of the universe. However,
he was cautious about challenging the Roman church on this belief. More than a century
would elapse before someone would be bold enough and possessed sufficient evidence
to clash with the church.
In the 1690s, after he had invented the first telescope, Italian astronomer Galileo
Galilei saw clear evidence that the earth revolved around the sun and not vice-versa.
The church considered the idea heretical, and Galileo was threatened with death if
he did not recant. Finally he did, although legend has it, as he left the presence
of the pope, he muttered under his breath about the earth: "But it still moves."
"When the Roman church attacked Copernicus and Galileo," says Christian philosopher
Francis Schaeffer, "it was not because their teaching actually contained anything
contrary to the Bible. The church authorities thought it did, but that was because
Aristotelian elements had become part of church orthodoxy, and Galileo's notions
clearly conflicted with them. In fact, Galileo defended the compatibility of Copernicus
and the Bible, and this was one of the factors which brought about his trial" (How
Shall We Then Live?, Fleming H. Revell Co., Old Tappan, New Jersey, 1976, p.
131).
In fact, some believe that the invention of the printing press and subsequent broader
distribution of the Bible in the 1500s played a large role in the emergence of modern
science. "The rise of modern science," says Francis Schaeffer, "did not conflict
with what the Bible teaches; indeed, at a crucial point the Scientific Revolution
rested upon what the Bible teaches.
"Both Alfred North Whitehead and J. Robert Oppenheimer have stressed that modern
science was born out of the Christian world view . . . As far as I know,
neither of the two men were Christians . . . Because the early scientists
believed that the world was created by a reasonable God, they were not surprised
to discover that people could find out something true about nature and the universe
on the basis of reason" (Schaeffer, pp. 132-133).
As this more biblically based science expanded, ecclesiastical leaders had to admit
that their long-held positions were wrong. With these two teachings--that the earth
was flat and that it was at the center of the universe--proven false, the church
had lost two rounds of prestige against emerging science. As time went on, scientific
study grew increasingly apart from the dominant religion, which was mired in its
Greek and medieval thought. This gap has only widened with time.
The Theory of Evolution
"The early Greek philosophers," explains Dr. Hayward, "were probably the first
thinkers to toy with the notion of evolution. Along with many other ideas from ancient
Greece it reappeared in western Europe in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries . . .
But one great difficulty stood in the way. Nobody--not ever Lamarck, who made a brave
attempt--could explain convincingly how evolution could have taken place. Each species
seemed to be fixed. There seemed no way in which one species could give rise to another.
"Darwin changed all that with his theory that the way evolution worked was by 'natural
selection.' He proposed that small variations in each generation--the kind of natural
variations that enable breeders to produce new varieties of dogs and cows and apples
and roses--would eventually add up to very big differences, and thus, over hundreds
of millions of years, could account for every species on earth" (Creation and
Evolution, Bethany House, Minneapolis, 1985, pp. 4-5).
Thus, in the late nineteenth century, scientists and educators were sidetracked from
finding the truth about the origin and meaning of life when they adopted Darwin's
reasoning. Their widespread acceptance of an alternative explanation for the existence
of man and the creation apart from the account of Genesis soon led to a general distrust
of the Bible. This massive shift of thought has had far-reaching consequences for
humanity. "Darwinism," says Dr. Hayward, "begins to look more like a huge maze without
an exit, where the world has wandered aimlessly for a century and a half" (Hayward,
p. 58).
Meanwhile the churches, on its base of Greek philosophy, could not adequately explain
and defend aspects of their teachings. They, too, were ultimately sidetracked by
their mixing of pagan philosophy with the Bible.
Acceptance of Evolution
Some of the reasons for the acceptance of Darwin's theory involved conditions
of the time. The 19th century was an era of great social and religious unrest. Science
was riding a crest of popularity. Impressive discoveries and inventions were appearing
constantly. Darwin himself had an impeccable reputation as a dedicated naturalist,
and the length and tediousness of his book hid many of the real weaknesses of his
theory (he described his own book as "one long argument"). It was in this climate
that Darwin's theory gained acceptance.
At the same time, the Roman church was being affected by its own cumulative mistakes
about science as well as the critics' onslaughts against its teachings and the Bible.
The church itself began to accept scientific explanations rather than supernatural
ones.
The momentum grew in the 20th century until Protestants and Catholics alike accepted
theistic evolution. This is the belief that God occasionally intervenes in
a largely evolutionary process through such steps as creating the first cell and
then permitting the whole process of evolution to take place, or by simply waiting
for the first man to appear from the gradual chain of life and then giving him a
soul.
"Darwinian evolution to them," says Dr. Hayward, "is merely the method by which God,
keeping discreetly in the background, created every living thing . . .
The majority of theistic evolutionists have a somewhat liberal view of the Bible,
and often regard the early chapters of Genesis as a collection of Hebrew myths" (Hayward,
p. 8).
The implications for the trustworthiness of the Bible are enormous. Is it the
inspired and infallible Word of God, or are parts of it merely well-intentioned myths?
Are sections of it simply inaccurate and unreliable? Were Jesus Christ and the apostles
wrong when they affirmed that Adam and Eve were created directly by God? (Matthew 19:4; 1Corinthians 15:45).
Was Christ mistaken, and did He mislead others? Is 2Timothy 3:16 true, that "All
Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine (church
teaching) . . . "? As you can see, the implications for Christian faith
and teaching are profound (see "The Testimony of the New Testament," p.6).
Perhaps the effects of his own theory on Darwin's own faith can illustrate the damage
it can do to religious convictions. Darwin started as a theology student and a staunch
respecter of the Bible, but once he formulated his theory he lost faith in the Old
Testament. Later he could no longer believe in the miracles of the New Testament.
A danger lies in following in Darwin's footsteps. Remember the old saying, "If you
teach a child he is only an animal, don't complain when he behaves like one"? Can
we not lay part of the blame for today's rampant immorality and crime on society's
prevalent values and beliefs derived in part from this theory?
Darwinism and Morality
If there isn't a just God to judge the actions of men, isn't it easier for man
to do as he pleases? Sir Julian Huxley once admitted why many quickly embraced evolution
with such fervor: "I suppose the reason we jumped at Origin of Species was
that the concept of God interfered with our own sexual mores" (Henry Morris, The
Troubled Waters of Evolution, San Diego, Creation-Life Publishers, 1974, p. 58).
He later wrote, "The sense of spiritual relief which comes from rejecting the idea
of God as a superhuman being is enormous" (Essays of a Humanist, London, Penguin,
1966, p. 223). Could this have something to do with the immorality seen in so many
schools and universities where God is banned from the classroom and evolutionary
theory is taught as fact?
So can the Genesis account be reconciled with the idea of an ancient earth? What
about evolution? How strong is its case? These questions will be covered in future
installments. (To be continued.)
30
Sidebar: Ancient Near-Eastern Concepts of Creation
At the beginning of recorded history, some 5,000 years ago, the Sumerians of
Mesopotamia left accounts of their creation myths inscribed on cuneiform tablets.
The first civilizations of the Fertile Crescent all had similar creation accounts,
but the only one without myth and with a moral and perfect God is the biblical version.
It is quite natural to conclude, as nations gradually distanced themselves from the
true Creator God and sank into immorality and polytheism, that their understanding
became corrupted and eventually was used to prop up their political, social and philosophical
outlooks. Nevertheless, a kernel of truth was left as a witness of the original,
uncorrupted account.
The Sumerians conceived the earth as being flat and the sky as a canopy of clouds
and stars. They believed earth and sky were created by two gods: An, the male sky
god, and Ki, the female earth god. These two gave birth to a multitude of other gods,
each with a particular power and responsibility over a part of the creation or physical
phenomena (lightning, trees, mountains, sickness, etc.). They lived in a kingly court
in heaven with An, the supreme god, surrounded by four subordinate creator gods.
Below them was a council of seven gods and, finally, the 50 remaining minor gods.
All physical occurrences could be interpreted by the priests as the result of the
particular mood or whim of one of these gods. They could be placated by offerings
and sacrifices. Although these deities were considered immortal, their supposed conduct
was nothing but human. They were depicted as often fighting among themselves, full
of petty envies and lusts and subject to hunger and even death.
A few centuries later the Babylonians conquered the Sumerians and modified these
myths to exalt their own civilization. Now it was the Babylonian god Marduk who was
in charge, and he formed the heavens and the earth by killing a female god, Tiamat.
By dividing her into two pieces, the heavens and earth were separated.
Such are some of the reasonings of the human imagination.
--Mario Seiglie
Sidebar: The Greek Concept of Creation
The ancient Greeks had no shortage of creation myths, with many elements taken from
the Babylonian model. Two poets, Homer and Hesiod, described the Greek religious
system with their national gods in charge, living in a royal court full of intrigues
and lusts.
In his version, Hesiod saw the origin of the universe as deriving from the chaos,
the vastness of space, that produced the first goddess, Gaea (earth). She created
Uranus (heaven), who became her husband, and they produced many lesser gods. The
division between heaven and earth occurred when one of their sons, Cronus, in a fit
of jealousy attacked his father, Uranus. Zeus, the one who became the chief god,
was born from this irate Cronus and his wife, Rhea.
The Greeks also believed the earth was flat and surrounded by a vast ocean. The Romans
later incorporated this view of the planet into their beliefs around the time the
Christian era began.
Sadly, the only surviving writings about Christianity from the first centuries after
the apostles come mainly from men steeped in Greek thought and philosophy. These
were Justin Martyr (110-165 A.D.); Clement (160-220); Origen (185-254) and Augustine
(354-430), all former disciples of the thinking of Plato and Aristotle. In this way
Greek explanations of a flat earth as well as other aspects of Greek philosophy entered
the Roman church and formed much of its theology.
"The problem with Gentile Christians," notes church historian Samuele Bacchiocchi,
"was not only their lack of familiarity with Scripture, but also their excessive
fascination with their Greek philosophical speculations, which conditioned their
understanding of Biblical truths. While Jewish Christians often erred in the direction
of legalism, Gentile Christians often erred in the direction of philosophical speculations
which sundered Christianity from its historical roots" (God's Festivals in Scripture
and History, Biblical Perspectives, Berrien Springs, Mich., 1995, pp. 102-103).
In particular, Origen and Augustine began to interpret much of the book of Genesis
as allegory. They viewed the Genesis account as being filled with symbolic fictional
figures representing truth, human conduct or experience. Gradually, this allegorical
method became the norm in the Catholic understanding of much of Genesis. Clearly,
later popes were influenced by these conceptions held by the early church fathers.
--Mario Seiglie
Sidebar: Ussher's Erroneous Interpretation of Genesis
One of several controversies that broke out between the scientific community
and the Roman church concerned the age of the earth. The church had taught through
the centuries that the earth was only a few thousand years old. The Reformers also
shared that view. An English bishop, James Ussher (1581-1656), announced that he
had pinpointed the creation of Adam as not only in 4004 B.C., but, to be more precise,
at 8 o'clock on Saturday morning, Oct. 22.
None of this, of course, was spelled out in the Scriptures. To regard the creation
of the earth and Adam to be at virtually the same time is erroneous, as we shall
see in a future installment.
Consequently, it came as a great surprise in the 19th century when the emerging science
of geology began to discover and analyze many deep, fossil-laden strata. In 1799
William Smith, known as the father of English geology, established what was called
the geologic column. Two centuries of subsequent geologic work all over the globe
have largely vindicated his basic conclusions.
Even today geologists, having drilled as far as seven miles into the earth's crust,
can find oil by comparing the rock layers to this geologic column. The same basic
pattern has been confirmed by thousands of geologic and oil explorations. The essentials
of this geologic column were established before Charles Darwin came onto the scene.
The earliest geologists, many of whom were studious Christians, believed that an
ancient earth did not contradict the biblical account. After all, they had seen that
the Bible did not give a date for the original creation. Genesis 1 could be seen
as an original creation, and later, after an indeterminate period, came the formation
in seven days of the present human, animal and plant life as we know it. Up to that
time in the Western world, no one had questioned the biblical account of the creation
of living things. Evolution was not generally accepted.
--Mario Seiglie
Sidebar: The Testimony of the New Testament
Many passages show us that Jesus Christ and the apostles fully accepted the Genesis
account of the creation. Christ talked about "the beginning of the creation which
God created" (Mark 13:19; see also Matthew 24:21).
He once asked some who questioned Him: "Have you not read that He who made them (Adam
and Eve) at the beginning 'made them male and female'?" (Matthew 19:4; Mark 10:6).
Later the resurrected Christ referred to himself as "the Beginning of the creation"
(Revelation 3:14).
Many are surprised to learn that the Bible reveals Christ as the Creator! More than
once the apostle Paul explained to early Christians that God had created all things
by Jesus Christ (Ephesians 3:9; Colossians 1:16). Hebrews 1:2 tells us that
God "has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, . . . through whom
also He made the worlds."
Paul also told the Athenians that God had made all nations "from one blood" (Acts 17:26); all are descendants of Adam and Eve. Paul believed all that was written in
the Law and the Prophets (Acts 24:14), including the Creation accounts.
Finally, both the specifics and the general tenor of Peter's last letter tell us
that he, too, believed in creation (see 2Peter 3:4-7 in particular).
--John Ross Schroeder
©1999 United Church of God, an International Association
Related Information:
Table of Contents that includes "Creation or Evolution: Did God Create Man?"
Other Articles by Mario Seiglie
Origin of article "Creation or Evolution: Did God Create Man?"
Keywords: Bible and a round earth evolution creation Darwinism and morality morality and Darwinism
Bible and science: